How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Go Home, Congress...   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Go Home, Congress...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 10-24-2011 06:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Obama calls Congress 'increasingly dysfunctional'


President Obama said today he will start issuing executive orders designed to improve the economy because "we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job."

"Where they won't act, I will," Obama said during a housing speech in Las Vegas, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate -- 13.4% -- and one of its highest foreclosure rates.

As he has in recent days, Obama also criticized congressional Republicans for blocking his proposed $447 billion jobs bill in the Senate.

"Last month, when I addressed a joint session of Congress about our jobs crisis, I also said that I intend to do everything in my power to act on behalf of the American people," Obama said. " With or without Congress."

Republicans said they don't think Obama's jobs bill will work, noting that the national unemployment rate is at 9.1% more than two-and-a-half years into his presidency.

"Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

"And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is."


[URL=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe ed%3A]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=F eed%3A[/URL]  +UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo


So that's the story. If Obama can't get congress to passwhatever he wants, He will simply ignore them and do it anyway. This should come as no surprise, since he has done the same thing with regards ot illegal aliens and the offshore drilling ban. I wonder if he was throwing a hissy  fit while speaking.

These are first steps of the Brave New World, Obama style.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


1 posted 10-24-2011 06:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Your link is as dysfunctional as Congress Mike.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


2 posted 10-24-2011 07:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

GW Bush - 288 executive orders (and he had control of Congress)

BH Obama - 72


If you look at the entire history of executive orders someone did open the floodgates, but it wasn't Barry--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 10-24-2011 07:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A +UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


4 posted 10-24-2011 07:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Right, better link Mike, thanks... and from your article

quote:

While presidential action can help the economy, it cannot replace bipartisan congressional action, Obama also said as he again criticized congressional Republicans for blocking his $447 billion jobs plan.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 10-24-2011 07:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, LR, Obama criticizes  congress for not passing his jobs bill. ALso in the article is written...

""Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is."

So, with all of the things congress DID  pass, even the stimulus bill, the financial regulation bill, the  state funding bill, the housing plan bill, ets...we are STILL ,not only in dire straits, but even worse off. What does that tell you about Obama's plans for fixing the country?....other than the fact they haven't worked, of course?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 10-24-2011 09:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jesse Jackson Jr., the spawn of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.,  thinks you ought to have your constitutional rights suspended if you don’t like Obama’s jobs plan.

    Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

    Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.
  
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/jesse-jackson-jr-compares-obama-opponents-to-confederate-states-says-obama-should-take-extra-constitutional-action/

"extra-constitutional action".....catchy.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


7 posted 10-24-2011 11:23 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"and because the banksters are sitting on 2 trillion."

and that's because, ( I think it's more
corporate earnings but regardless)?


.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


8 posted 10-24-2011 11:39 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Corporate earnings can't possibly be up with a Kenyan, socialist, Islamic, Nazi president.  That has to be wrong John.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 10-25-2011 07:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 10-26-2011 05:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Ah, Mike, when I complained about constitutional rights being eroded [Edited Please stop talking ABOUT other posters, Bob - Ron] I specified Posse Comitas, search and seizure, expanded use of illegal wiretaps, increased presidential powers that allowed designation of individuals as  essentially rightless enemy combatants and permitted  detention.  All of these were quite real and were voted into what I believe was an incredibly unconstitutional law thanks to a cowardly, politically pliant and, on the Republican side at least, triumphant, Congress.  The adjectives prior to “triumphant” apply to my own party’s actions at the time.

     I was pretty specific about which rights were abridged by whom.  In the case I was speaking about above, it was the post 9/11 congress six weeks after that event at the behest of President Bush.

     One of my criticisms of President Obama is that he hasn't made a concerted effort to reverse these abridgments of our civil rights.

     The ACLU has detailed some of the abuses of the PATRIOT ACT.  Both President Bush and his congresses and President Obama and his have a lot to answer for in permitting these to continue.  An analysis of the myths and realities of The PATRIOT ACT is offered in the following citation.  I believe it indicts both administrations, President Obama’s administration more for its failure to repeal at least some of the more outrageous parts of that law.  
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-li berty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

     Should you care to be similarly specific about which pieces of the Constitution President Obama has violated and what reasons you have for believing he has done so, I’d be happy to have a look.  In the meantime, this simply appears to be one of those “everybody knows, so it must be right” assertions that really requires a bit of bolstering to distinguish it from flat earth society press releases.

     Obama not repealing things he should have, I buy that.

     Obama violating constitutional law wholesale, I pass on the KoolAid, thank you.  Please given me neutral confirmation.

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-26-2011 05:20 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 10-26-2011 11:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Has Obama trashed the constitution? The jury is still out on several areas but he has done enough to raise the doubts in many minds that he hasn't. Why?

He ignored court decisions on the lifting of the off-shore oil drilling.
He has refused to go along with state immigration laws.
The demand on private citizens to be forced to purchase insurance under Obamacare will go before the supreme court to determine it's constitutionality.
He used a tactic to get Obamacare passed through congress which had never been used for such important legislation.
He has been accused of not following the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In addition, we have....

Levin: Constitutional genius Obama can’t veto balanced budget amendment
Posted by The Right Scoop on Jul 18, 2011 in Politics | 88 Comments

Earlier today Obama threatened he would veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill if it reaches his desk. Levin says the only problem with this is that, while he can veto the Cut and Cap part, if the Balanced Budget Amendment passes both the House and the Senate it goes to the states, not Obama. He’s got nothing to do with it.

One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things

http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-constitutional-genius-obama-cant-veto-balanced-budget-amendment/


By Devin Dwyer
Apr 15, 2011 6:28pm
President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill/

Add all that to his comments now that, if congress doesn't do what he wants, he'll go on without them, and perhaps, you can understand, even if not agree with, the mistrust.

The proof will be in the pudding with the new executive orders he comes up with and what they will involve. Disregarding LR's unfamiliarity with mathematics, Obama is already setting records with executive orders and it appears those numbers will skyrocket, if he continues with his threats.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 10-27-2011 02:22 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


He ignored court decisions on the lifting of the off-shore oil drilling.

He has refused to go along with state immigration laws.

The demand on private citizens to be forced to purchase insurance under Obamacare will go before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality.

He used a tactic to get Obamacare passed through congress which had never been used for such important legislation.

He has been accused of not following the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


quote:


He ignored court decisions on the lifting of the off-shore oil drilling.



This is the best summary I have found this far:
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/deepwater-drilling-offshore-oil-progress-delayed-under-slowmatorium

     I suspect that a more stringent review process of applications makes the process more difficult, and that the prior review process was not sufficient.  An updated review process would likely take longer, especially with some of the liberties the oil companies have taken with the applications from time to time.

     You may feel differently, but I am unclear how this is unconstitutional behavior, and I am not aware of anybody taking legal steps that would suggest that much against him.  This may be because the judge who issued the orders owned substantial amounts of oil company stock, and might properly have recused himself from sitting on the case in the first place.
quote:

He has refused to go along with state immigration laws.



     States do not have the constitutional right to make immigration law; they are not national entities.  They also do not have the right to make their own foreign policy or to declare war.  Such things are reserved for the Federal government.  I would argue that President Obama might, indeed, have been accused of behaving in an unconstitutional fashion if he  had permitted any individual states to pursue individual immigration policy; and that the right wing has been pressuring him to do so in this case.

quote:


The demand on private citizens to be forced to purchase insurance under Obamacare will go before the supreme court to determine it's constitutionality.



     The fact that its constitutionality has not been tested is proof that it is not unconstitutional.  It may prove to be, in which case, some alternative will need to be found.  The idea is not to be unconstitutional, the idea is to fund the program.  I am reasonably certain, on the other hand, that when an alternative funding source is found, the Republicans will find an objection to that as well.  The Republican problem is not with the funding, it’s with the program and with the notion that it’s being proposed by Democrats, and that it cuts into the profits of one of the large funding sources for Republican backing, the financial industry.

     To be fair, the financial industry backs a fair number of Democrats as well.

     This is hardly a constitutional issue.  There are no amendments being crossed off because of this, nor are there likely to be.  If you believe there are, name them.
quote:

He used a tactic to get Obamacare passed through congress which had never been used for such important legislation.



     I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about things that President Obama was doing that were unconstitutional, such as illegal search and seizure, unauthorized wire taps, abuse of habeus corpus and the like, such as were put into place by The PATRIOT ACT and have not been repealed by the Obama administration.  To me, these things are pretty clearly unconstitutional and do go against some of the amendments in the bill of rights.  These are real abuses.

     When John Marshall expanded the use of the Supreme Court so that it  was accepted as the arbiter of disputes between branches of the government and was able to interpret the constitution,that was putting a big one over on the rest of the government.  There was no constitutional justification for it at all; and it was a good thing he got away with it, I think.

     Please, tell me what was unconstitutional about what President Obama did.  The Constitution leaves it up to the Senate what their rules are going to be, and this one fit.  You don’t have to like it, in the same way I don’t have to like the filibuster rules.

     I see lots of reasons to be upset in a partisan sort of way, and I sympathize, in a partisan sort of way.  But I don’t see anything that rises to the level of the violations that both Republican and Democratic administrations have colluded in perpetuating in the form of The PATRIOT ACT for ten years now.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 10-27-2011 08:22 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"The fact that its constitutionality has not been tested is proof that it is not unconstitutional."....BobK


The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals.
The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.
The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html#ixzz1bz3Rpw1I

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-27-2011 09:13 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


14 posted 10-27-2011 09:25 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     So?  

     If it's as politically charged as you believe, then the President has taken on the possibility of such a case, and, from your description it sounds like it will go against him.  Your beef is exactly what?  That he might damage his chances of re-election?

     Exactly how is that unconstitutional?

     The Supremes are big boys & girls.  I suspect they can decide whether or not they have a case they want to take or not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 10-27-2011 10:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you commented that it has not been tested. I showed you where it has been, where the 11th found it unconstitutional and where 26 states have filed suit against it.....and your response is..."So?"

Have a nice day.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


16 posted 10-27-2011 12:24 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If the court declares it to be unconstitutional. then it will be unconstitutional.  In that case, other funding methods will need to be found.  

     If the case is accepted by the court, then the court will try it regardless of elections.  If the case is as open and closed as you suggest, you should have no problems.  Usually what happens, however, is that the loser makes some sort of an administrative adjustment to bring policy in sync with constitutional guidelines.  To have this happen during an election doesn't seem to be a terrible thing to me in this case, unlike the decision about the outcome of the election itself in 2000.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 10-27-2011 01:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

True enough that the court will make the final decision but, contrary to your claim, it HAS been tested. That's what caused it to wind up in court in the first place.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 10-27-2011 01:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Again, it hasn't made it's way to the Supreme court.  If the Supremes take it or not will make the difference initially, then, if they do take it, what their decision is will decide.  Lots of decisions go back and forth several times as they head up the the appeals ladder.  If the previous judgement stands, then alternative funding arrangments will need to be found.

     I believe the "So" remains justified.  If there is a big deal, I'm uncertain what it would be.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 10-27-2011 02:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

ok, Bob....whatever.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 10-28-2011 03:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Congress being "increasingly dysfunctional" may be a positive spin put on the current situation.  

     I am not as friendly as President Obama.  I believe the current Congress is purposely trying to stop the functioning of the government, and has been trying to do so since at least the early 1990s, and that the Republicans are attempting to prolong the current recession well beyond the amount of time that it would have taken by failing to pass the necessary legislation to get us out of it.

     I also believe that they have helped create the recession by dismantling many of the regulations that have protected us from economic downturns of such  severity since the great depression.  I also believe that this is why you see a movement like the OWS movement now.  People from a wide variety of points of view seem to share this common viewpoint, this anger at the way the lack of regulation of the financial  markets has affected us.  I don't know that they have as yet a representative voice or set of voices in the Congress or in the White House.

     It appears to me that this may be shaping up, but I don't know the time frame.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 10-28-2011 10:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So, as a democrat, you believe all of the ills for the past 20 years are the fault of the Republicans...is that supposed to be surprising?

You also believe that is the impetus behind the OWLS. Peaceful tea party rallies -> bad. OWLS breaking the law and getting arrested by the hundreds -> good. Of course, one has to ask that, if your premise is true that the OWLS are protesting against Republican actions, why aren't they in front of government offices instead? Why do many of them hold signs and make comments against Democrats?

""Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is."

So, with all of the things congress DID  pass, even the stimulus bill, the financial regulation bill, the  state funding bill, the housing plan bill, ets...we are STILL ,not only in dire straits, but even worse off. What does that tell you about Obama's plans for fixing the country?....other than the fact they haven't worked, of course?


I asked that question earlier. It was ignored. Obama was given the stimulus. What did he do with it? Did he have the shovel-ready jobs he claimed? No. Did he bring down the unemployment rate as he assured us he would? No. Did he put a large part of it into companies that failed, even when we was warned by his own people they would? Yes. Did he waste a large part of it on non-job producing activities? Yes. Is he now claiming that, if given more money, he will do the same things he promised to do with the first stimulus? Yes. Should we believe him? Only if we are idiots. It's the old "Fool me once...." axiom set in motion. Some, like LR, claim that the stimulus didn't work because Obama wasn't given enough money. That's like gamblers going home from Vegas on a bus, saying, "If only we had had more money and could have made bigger bets, we would have won!" It wasn't the amount of money. It was how he squandered it and passed it out to friends and political supporters. It wouldn't be any different this time, I'm sure. He is what he is.


SO blame Republicans all you like, Bob. It allows you to ignore the real reason why we are in the dumper and why Obama, the man without a plan, is not the person to bring us out of it. He can throw as many hissy fits as he wants. He can scream at congress, who have passed more of his bills than they should have. Democrats can all stand together and scream, "It's not us! It's those evil Republicans who won't let us do what we want to do!" until they are hoarse. People are wising up. Obama has done nothing to alleviate our problems and the majority of people don't believe that he will. He's in over his head with his inexperience and trying to double down instead of gambling with our money reasonably.....and, yes, he has referred to what he is doing as gambling.

You want the true reason for the OWLS? It's there in a nutshell. People have no confidence the the current administration will do anything good for the country and their frustration has put them on the streets.

Evil republicans? Thank God we have them.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


22 posted 10-28-2011 01:06 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Actually, I thought you were talking about congress here.  It's what you called the thread"  "Go Home Congress..."  Maybe I need a very different pair of glasses.  Last I saw, the approval rate of congress was running at about 9%.  That's amazing.  We probably differ as to why.

     One think that most of the public is clear about, even if they're clear about nothing else, is that the Republicans favor one group and one group only, and that's the wealthy.  That's who the Republicans will support.  They may do some other things, but when the wealthy call, the Republicans come a running.

     I wish it was more evident that the democrats were the party that served the poor and the middle classes.  It ought to be clear, but a lot of Democrats simply aren't making that clear enough to convince the public.  The nature of the Democratic brand has gotten confused, and the Democratic Party makes a huge mistake by allowing that to happen.

     As for trashing President Obama, why not pick one place to do it.  Or at least raise new points if you're going to raise the subject in multiple threads.  When I've already responded to criticisms in one venue, it gets boring to respond to the same criticisms in another.  I feel that I need a decent response to my replies the first time around simply to show that what I've said has been read and digested.

[Edited - Ron]

     None of this enters into any discussion from the Republican point of view in these pages.  Not that II've seen.  Nor has there been a response to my occasional raising of the issue.

     I don't mind talking about what I see as the President's failures.  But having no recovery plan is not one of those failures.  Having a viable recovery plan, even, is not one of those failures.  Having the Republicans put the good of their party and the good of the very wealthy and the corporate class ahead of the good of the country is, to my mind, the cause of those failures; that and having the ruthlessness actually to pursue such a cruel nationally destructive agenda.

     Other than that, it's fine.

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2011 06:49 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 10-28-2011 02:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Knowing this means you are aware that refusing to renew that aid package meant that states would feel a large and painful crunch about a year ago.  Kbnowing that means you are aware that's what the Republicans were voting to have happen when they refused to allow bills renewing that aid package to go through.

Bob, do you realize what you are saying? That's the point entirely! When Obama came out with his grandoise plans to help the states, to hir more police and firefighters, he didn't mention loudly enough for the public to hear, that it was only for a year, two at most. After that, when the money ran out, the states would either have to come up with money to pay all of the new officers or firemen, or lay them off. That's why some states refused his money. Now Obama is trying to pull the same routine, telling people how the Republicans are trying to stop the hiring of these same officers and fireman. The idiot Biden is out there talking of how republicans don't care if rape and robberies go up through lack of police protection, being refused by republicans. Does he say anything about it being a temporary fix that will leave the states in the same predicament when the funding gets pulled out next year? Oh, no, don't talk about that.

So what exactly are you complaining about republicans now? Do you blame them for allowing Obama to have the bill in the first place, knowing it was nothing more than a temporary fix for political grandstanding? Do you blame them for not renewing it every time Obama says "I need more money?"

It was all a grandstand play on Obama's part to make him look good, temporarily, so he could say, "Hey, look at all the jobs I created!!!" (just don't look for them next year). Obama got states to hire people they were going to have to lay off, got them to work on projects like roads and bridges, that they were going to have to abandon or come up will millions of their own to continue. It has been nothing but a dog and pony show and you can't even see it. Why? You don't want to.

Please don't give me the party line about republican favoring the rich. I consider that to be so ludicrous and a mantra that has the millionaires like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore and all of the other fat cat democrats laugh about back in the congressional bar. Of course the public believes it. The democrats have spent millions of hours and billions of dollars to drum it onto everyone's head. They chant it like Jimmy Johnson did before passing out the kool-aid, hoping that no one will take a close enough look to see that they, themselves, do nothing for the middle class at all. They've tried to do the same thing with civil rights. Their tactics are nothing new. There are always more poor than there are rich. You want the votes or support of the poor? Tell them that your opponents favor the rich. Make the rich and their supporters the enemy and you have the vote.  Are your opponents supporters of the rich? WHo cares? Say they are...simple enough. That's gone on since medeival times and why shouldn't it? It keeps working.

BUffet talks about how the rich needs to pay mopre taxes while he fights the government not to pay the taxes he owes. Gore and Kerry talk about being for the middle class while they give pennies to charity. Michael Moore calls capitalism evil but avoids all questions about hiw own personal wealth that capitalism allowed him to have. I'm gonne NEED Obamacare because I'm getting sick to death of this double standard and sleight of hand garbage that democrats are performing on the public. You want to continue the chant? Knock yourself out. Say five "Republicans love the rich" before going to sleep each night and you'll be a good democrat.

You know, I used to think that democrat leaders were just misguided. Now I fully believe that they are a bunch of eevil hippocrites with no regard for the country at all.

Pelosi talks about republicans not caring if women fall down on the floors and die. Biden talks about how republicans don't care if women get raped in the streets. That's a real class group you have going for you, Bob...talk like that must really make one proud to be a democrat, right? They have no class, dignity or self- respect and I doubt they even care. You can have them....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 10-28-2011 03:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If the Samaratin had only helped the man on the side of the road for his own self- agrandizement in the scriptures of one of the world's largest religions, the man on the side of the road was still helped.....
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Go Home, Congress...   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors