»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The big lie that Obama can't lead is crumbling
| The Alley |
|
The big lie that Obama can't lead is crumbling |
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This article pretty much summarises what I've been banging on about for months. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/201 1/0527/The-big-lie-that-Obama-can-t-lead-is-crumbling/%28page%29/2 In summary: "The big lie that Obama can't lead is crumbling Prizing bravado, we’ve undervalued President Obama's brand of quiet competence." and: "Some of this maligning simply reflects the same savage partisan attacks leveled against every president (except Ronald Reagan) since Watergate. Some of it reflects darker bigotry toward Mr. Obama. But it also shows our outdated and wrongheaded notions of leadership." Those two statements imo go to the heart of why some Americans just can't stand Obama or handle his popularity. In this very forum, let alone all over the right wing media, the notion has been put about that Obama is an "embarrassment" a "bumbling fool". Peculiar that, when most of the civilised world thinks he is a magnificent statesman. I think right wing America need to wake up to the fact that they are the minority - the odd ones out in the world, living in the past in an era of machismo all-American brashness where the competence of a President is measured by the size and brassiness of the bike he/she rides. Obama to me marks a "last chance" for America to avoid the clutches of historical precedent and save itself from the fate of all over-confident Empires. Is the US as Biden boasts "the greatest nation on the face of the earth". Maybe. Maybe by some measures. But it sure as hell won't be much longer if the Palin tea party gains a foothold in power. Obama has demonstrated how power and influence should and can be used to help to influence the future. Quiet competence and humility are more potent weapons than any amount of loud posturing and power boasts. Hopefully there will be sufficient people in the US who can see that to gain him an further term. ............ This: http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpres s.com/2011/05/21/the-difference-between-sarah-palin-allen-west-and-barack-obama-in-pictures/ says it all really. A picture tells a thousand words. Incredibly the people on this site are actually celebrating the gas guzzling macho idiotic antics of Palin and West - while denigrating the sober pictures of Obama on a bike. Yep, god help us if these people get to choose your next President. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Incredibly there are people on this site using phrases like the gas guzzling macho idiotic antics of Palin and West and thus erasing any creditability they are trying to achieve. Incredibly there are people on this site who believe that anyone against Obama and his policies are hate-mongers and bigots and not just people who believe his policies are damaging to the country. I think everyone believes Obama can lead. After all, he has led us into the biggest national debt in the country's history. Nice going, Barack  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Well Mike, you have a perfect right not to answer a single one of the points made in the article, or even to address the point that there may be something wrong when people ridicule a President for riding a bike while praising his opponents for behaving irresponsibly. People will have to form their own judgements about your stance. I think the writer was exactly right when he said, "American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership". The photos pretty much say it all too. And there was I thinking that the debt originated with the Republicans leaving this President the near impossible task of digging the country out of the mess they got it into. Oh well, silly moi - it was all Barack's fault obviously. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No need to apologize, moonbeam. I wouldn't expect your bias to head in any other direction.  Happy Memorial Day. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
And to you Mike. I was just listening to the 6 o' clock news and hear that Obama has appointed Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as his new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A "combat tested" officer. Combat tested recently in Iraq. It's already getting a good reception, and sounds like yet another good decision. What was the national debt when Bush left office by the way? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't understand. You refer to the mess Bush left the country in and the debt he piled up and you don't know what it is? I suggest you find out if you want to make such statements. As far as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs being combat tested, I can't readily recall one who hasn't been. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, I'll help you out, Moonbeam. 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Bottom line? When Bush left it was 10,024,724,896,912.49. After the first two years of Obama it was 13,561,623,030,891.79...without pulling out my calculator that's around a 30-35% raise. Whereas, from 2000 - 2008 the average in increase was 500 billion per year,from 2008 to 2009 it increased close to one trillion 900 billion. From 2009 to 2010 it increased over one trillion 600 billion. SInce the democrats took control of congress in 2006 the debt has gone from 8 1/2 trillion to 13 1/2 trillion, an increase of close to 60%. We're not even taking into account yet the incredible cost of implimenting Obamacare. Heading for golf...have a good day. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Interesting. According to your figures Mike the Bush budget (2008/2009) raised US debt by one trillion 900 billion and Obama reduced that by 233 billion in his first budget (2009/10). |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
No I didn't know the precise figure, I did however know that Obama inherited a mountain of debt, but more important a situation that was naturally dynamic with the dynamics pushing the debt skyward thanks to Bush (not that he had much choice in fairness). Much the same situation as Brown handed to Cameron over here. He (Obama) had a choice, he could have followed the course adopted by our Tory government of restricting expenditure wherever possible, or the opposite course advocated by Brown and his outgoing cronies, of encouraging growth by spending. Time will tell which course was/is right - maybe both are potentially workable. Maybe, as some economists argue, there is no "right", there is only tinkering, and recovery in fact depends upon physiological factors which cannot be influenced by fiscal or monetary manipulation. I'm suggesting that, if the best you can do is point the finger at Obama for increasing debt, that is, firstly a rather lame accusation when we don't yet know the outcome of his policy, and secondly, rather missing the much bigger point, that it was the previous administration and the world recession that forced unenviable choices. In other words, he's doing his best to unwind the messes of his predecessors, and the jury is out. Nice to see you aren't castigating him for his choice of top brass. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We're living his outcome, moonbeam. We're hurting bad and things get worse every day. We are forced to practice austerity measures in our household budgets, but the government seems to think it is exempt from the suffering that their policies inflict on us. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I agree, the move towards austerity measures while still in a recession is crazy economics. What's even crazier is that both the Republican party and the Tea party plan to introduce even more austerity measures - the same type of austerity measures that are failing miserably in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, you're talking to someone who can bathe in the glow Of Obama's charisma without having to live with the consequences of Obama's actions. Nice work if you can get it. In other words, he's doing his best to unwind the messes of his predecessors, and the jury is out. He's done nothing more than multiply the messes. The "blame Bush" chant is an excuse that's not doing too well these days. He's had the big chair for a couple of years now with nothing to show for it than more debt and a higher unemployment rate. We can all cry for the poor fellow who inherited such a mess, but he's the one who said "Yes, I can!" He's the one who looked at the situation and said he had the answers. Now, two years later with nothing to show for bravado talk, all he and people like you can come up with is "Bush's fault." That dog ain't huntin' any more. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I don’t get it Mike, given the figures you supplied how can you not believe Bush created a heap of debt for Obama to deal with? Or are you saying that the debt created under Bush was somebody else’s fault? If so whose fault was it? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He's not dealing with it very well, Uncas. He's making things worse. Ask any American who isn't sitting in his parents' basement blogging for media matters, you know, the people who actually have to pay the bills to run a household and put gas in the car to get to work, if they still have a job to go to. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 According to your figures Mike the Bush budget (2008/2009) raised US debt by one trillion 900 billion and Obama reduced that by 233 billion in his first budget (2009/10). Obviously, I must be missing something very simple here but I don't see how going from 11.9 trillion to 13.5 trillion is a reduction of 233 billion. Second, we have heard ad nauseum about "the past 10 years" as being when the ecomomy went to hell and spending spiraled out of control and yet one can see that the first 6 years of Bush were standard years with a reasonably good economy, even more so by tossing in the incredible losses incurred by 9/11. The last two years was when the increases jumped. Interestingly enough, the last two years of his term was when democrats took control of congress. Do we ever hear from people like Uncas that it was the two years in which democrats ran congress that things went downhill? Nope, we only hear it was the last two years of Bush. I've earned one thing for sure in the many conversations we have had here... if there is a republican president and a democratic congress, it's the president's fault when things go awry. If there is a democratic president and a republican congress, it's congress's fault. Funny how it works that way..... Goes to show how important the budget is to a democratic congress when they didn't even pass one last year. I can understand why, since one could have put restrictions on Obama's free-spending ways so they didn't even bother. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, that would have to be someone living on a different planet. quote: Denise, President Obama's current Approval Ratings from Gallup would indicate there must be a LOT of people still living in their parent's basement. quote: Consumers have little choice but to practice austerity in tough times, Denise. That's what makes them tough times, and it's exactly why recessions feed on themselves, becoming worse instead of getting better. It's a spiral too many homeless people know on a first hand basis. Why? Because consumers, by and large, only spend money. That's the paradigm where they live, so it's only natural that every government expenditure they see is automatically labeled spending. Businesses, unlike most consumers, don't just spend money. They also have to be willing to invest it. Spending is not the same as investing, although certainly both can be done well or either can be done poorly. The devil, as always, is in the details. Do we really want our government to be just a consumer? Or do we want it to invest in the future of America? Anyone who advocates a tightening of government "spending" in tough times simply hasn't looked very closely at history. Deficit spending is the only viable answer to a recession. Period. Any alternative to deficit spending has historically and inevitably led to a deepening of the recession. That's not theory, folks, that's history. Investment, I believe, has to be a part of government strategy. Which doesn't mean that I have to agree with every investment government chooses to make. The devil, again, is in the details. Voters, I think, should start concentrating on those details, analyzing the Return on Investment like the shareholders they truly are, and stop thinking like consumers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His ratings regarding the economy are not that rosey, Ron. His overall rating includes those people who seem to think he is such a charming fellow! http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-bounce-for-president-obama-on-economic-job-ratings-122492523.html |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Okay, Denise. We'll let you pick the poll. So you're contention then is that 32 percent of all Americans live in their parent's basement? LOL. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, not at all, Ron, just showing that his overall rating is much higher than his grade on dealing with the economy. The 32% probably includes those in their parent's basements plus the hardcore Democrat older population who would give him good marks no matter what he does. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
And how much of the negative rating, Denise, do you think comes from the hardcore Republicans who will continue to give him bad marks no matter what he does? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: It's a reduction in accrued debt Mike. In 2007/2008 the Bush budget added 1.017 trillion to the US national debt In 2008/2009 the Bush budget added 1.885 trillion In 2009/2010 the Obama budget added 1.652 trillion He managed to reduce the amount of accrued debt by 233 billion less than Bush added the year before. Where I come from that's call a reduction and generally considered an improvement especially given the fact that the US is in the teeth of a severe recession. He actually did better than it first seems, mandatory spending was 280 billion more in 2010 due to increased interest and entitlements so he had to find that before any reduction kicked in. Does that mean that the whole 13.5 trillion Bush's fault? Heck no. The national debt is an accumulated amount, every year the total is either added to or reduced based on the deficit or surplus created by that year's budget. Bush is only responsible for the debt he added during his term in office (6.1 trillion). Likewise, Obama is only responsible for the total amount created during his term in office (so far 1.6 trillion), the rest was created before his first budget by his predecessors. Who is responsible for the budget? Unless the President uses his veto - he is. He creates the budget and submits it to Congress they amend it and he signs it or uses his veto. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So Obama was responsible for not having a budget then? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Obama has a budget for 2011 Mike. It was compiled and presented to Congress on time in February 2010 and was enacted on April 15th 2011. Was he responsible for Congress missing the deadline to amend and approve it? No, that responsibility resides solely with Congress. The President's responsibility during the process to agree a budget is to present a budget on time and either sign it or veto it once it's passed through the Congressional process - he's fulfilled his responsibility in that regard. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I saw this thing on CNN regarding "the death of the american dream..." This life of austerity? DESCRIBED THE VALUES MY PARENTS TRIED DESPERATELY TO IMPRINT ON ME. and I do live it--we have a few credit cards now, but only for emergencies. We don't buy diddly on credit. Never did. My kids always knew they'd have to work for scholarships/pay their own way. We never bought a family plan cellphone package. Our landscaping is what just happens to survive. Why is the rest of the country so outraged that they must live within their means? Even if that means living in the poverty range, it's not exactly the same as the poverty range of, say, my grandparents. I have a bit of brain damage which happens to affect my mood and memory, but I do recall that the prior administration didn't exactly leave us in a kind place with the budget. I'd like to see a grassroots movement of ordinary citizens, who actually live their conscience... Support corporations who do not outsource jobs. Start reading the fine print of the contracts we sign--and make them live up to it. Be vocal--be radically vocal. It took me five days and ten zanax to explain to a company that they were charging us for being in violation of a contract, when in fact, they had violated their own terms to begin with. (Um, should we decide to change internet service? They OWE us about fifty bucks.) And all that cost me (and my family) was the daily migraine of listening to me rant on the phone, both patiently and impatiently, for five straight days. Not five days straight. Just five days in a row... we need to pay...attention. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Teflon President,Uncas? Nothing sticks to him at all. He's never responsible, I am being asked to understand. How nice for him. Let's see. You, as father, husband and head of household, give your family a budget you want followed. They decide not to act on it. You go to work and tell buddy Joe that the family ignores or doesn't act on your budget. What do you suppose Joe's answer is? Think hard.... So once he hands it over, he is done. Should they not act on it on time, would a president say, "don't ask me. I did my part." or would a president pick up the phone and say, Hey, homies, what's the holdup on the budget?" Think about that one, too... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Shouldn't that be OUR job, Mike? Those homies, after all, don't have to listen to the President because that's not the way the "checks and balances" of government have been designed. They damn sure better listen to a collective us, though. They're not his homies, Mike. They ARE ours. And yea, I think that makes them our responsibility. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, I'm not buying that one, Ron. Our job was to vote in a leader of the country who would do that. So we vote them out every four years if he doesn't. Big whoopee....and in the meantime? That's our job...to vote them in. Once they are there, it's their job. In this situation, it's the president's job. A budget for the country should be a big deal, I would think. It's not a situation where the president throws up his hands and says, "not my fault. I did what I was supposed to do". It's his job to press on getting it done and holding people responsible for not doing it. Is it your contention then that Obama can just tell the American people, "Hey, not looking out for you is not my job. It's yours. After all, you voted me and them in." ? I don't think that will play in Peoria.... I've seen a lot of Obama excusing here to absolve him for all kinds of things but this one, this "It's our fault if he doesn't do what he's supposed to do", has to rank right down there with the weakest, will all due respect. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Those homies, after all, don't have to listen to the President because that's not the way the "checks and balances" of government have been designed. You didn't really say that, did you, Ron? The democratic congress wouldn't listen to Obama? Pelosi and Reid would chisel his face on Mt. Rushmore if he wanted it done. Up until this last election, congress jumped through whatever hoop he held up. There was no check and balance in operation. It was Obama saying "I want it done" and congress finding a way of getting it done. You know that. You contend that, if Obama had said, "Nancy and Harry, get that budget done", they would have responded, "We don't really have to listen to you" ? LOL! They both wear Obama pj's and give thanks to him before eating a meal. I'm not sure any president has had more control over over a congress or two lackeys more devoted to him than Obama in his first two years. Yes, we can make a difference every two or four years. All we have to do is learn how to hold our breaths that long. If we can't, I guess that's our fault, too |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really, Mike? Isn't that just an abrogation of our own responsibilities as citizens? quote: Mike, I think you're confusing our Constitution with the political party system? I have no idea how the Democratic party imposes its will on its members. I'd be more than happy to listen to someone's thoughts on the matter. More importantly, however, I'd love to hear which part of the Constitution gives the Executive branch dominion over the Legislative branch? That's not to suggest, of course, that the President doesn't have influence in Congress. He does and I think if you look back over the last several decades you'll quickly conclude that his influence is almost always directly proportional to his popularity with the people. Congress, for all its transgressions, rarely loses sight of where the true power lies. Sadly, it appears that we do. quote: That's not my intent, Mike. Indeed, I agree the President should have better used his influence to pressure Congress for a quicker resolution. But that's still not where the ultimate responsibility must lie. What is the most common strategy for a President to pressure Congress? He makes a speech and appeals to the electorate, Mike. That's where the power really lies, and I'm sorry, but that's also where the responsibility must lie as well. How many letters, emails, or phone messages expressing your concerns over the budget did YOU send to your Congressional representatives, Mike? It's easy to say no one in Washington is going to listen to YOU, of course, but history (and damn recent history, at that) suggests they will certainly listen to US. Voting every two or four years is just the start of our responsibility. It's not the end. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I don't see where that's an aborgation of our responsibilities at all. Our job is to put into office the people we feel will do the best to serve our interests. We basically put ourselves in their hands. If you were to hire someone to be CEO of your company and found that they were only concerned with serving their own interests and not yours, what would you do? If you couldn't change their minds, you would fire him. Well, what happens if you find you cannot fire him for 4 years and, until then, you just have to accept whatever he does? How palatable does that sound to you? Yes, I can say, "Your fault, Ron. You hired him" and I would be right but would that be completely fair to you? No - and it's not to us to have someone say the same to us. I have no idea how the Democratic party imposes its will on its members. Of course you do. Perhaps you just don't want to acknowledge it. Anyone who has followed Obama, Pelosi and Reid knows. Congress, for all its transgressions, rarely loses sight of where the true power lies. Unfortunately, this congress, before the last election, considered that the true power lied with THEM. Pelosi and Reid gave ample quotes to verify that. They did not care about public opinion. As Pelosi said, "We won the election. We're running things now." Obama, while claiming the same thing, graciously offered to let the republicans sit in the back while he drove. Did they care about public opinion? There was no poll that showed any majority of the population supported Obama Care.....didn't matter to them. They slid cap and trade through the house literally in the dead of night with no fanfare because they knew public opinion would be against it. There are many instances to show that no public opinion or sentiment has mattered to them. The only time they consider it important is before elections.....period. What is the most common strategy for a President to pressure Congress? He makes a speech and appeals to the electorate, Mike. Sounds reasonable. do you recall any such speech? I can't find one. Do you see anywhere that Obama tried to exert any pressure on congress in that regard? No, me neither. With Pelosi and Reid in charge, anything Obama wanted done would have been done and please don't pretend you don't know that. Everything they have done since assuming command verifies it. Voting every two or four years is just the start of our responsibility. It's not the end. So what do you do, Ron, when you tell congress what you want done, reminding them of the fact that they work for you.....and they say get lost? You vote them out whenever the next election comes up, yes, but in the meantime? Do we take to the streets? Do we flood DC with protest parades? Do we go on strike? (maybe she was right, after all). Is it right for someone to just wag their finger and say, "well, it's your fault", when we were taken in by a confidence man? Sorry, I'm not gonna wear that mantle or pretend that the people I helped put in office don't have the responsibility of doing what they said they were going to do. Just ain't gonna happen.... |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: My guess is that the President would ask Congress to get their respective houses in order and fulfil their responsibility as laid down in the Congressional budgetary process Mike. He'd probably do it both privately and in a public as Ron suggested - I don't know if he picked up the phone on this occasion but the record is clear that he did address the issue in public: "For the sake of our people and our economy, we cannot allow gridlock to prevail," "I urge and expect [lawmakers] to find common ground so we can accelerate, not impede economic growth. ... Both sides will have to compromise," . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Probably the first thing I would do, Mike, is talk to them. Again, have you tried that yet? Beyond making your sentiments known? There's not a whole lot I like about the Tea Party, but even their most ardent critics have to admit the Tea Party has taken an active role in politics and, as a result, has brought out about a lot of change in government. In Michigan, the other side of the aisle is attempting to recall our newly elected Governor. They just might succeed, too. You and I are both of an age to remember with some clarity the ousting of Nixon. Political activism isn't easy (nor is it supposed to be) and it's rarely quick, but it's an option that was built into our Constitution for a reason. It's an important part of being American. Again, Mike, I'm not saying we shouldn't hold our elected officials responsible. We should. But NOT at the cost of ignoring our own responsibilities. In the specific instance you're talking about, Mike, I think public opinion was already pushing for budget legislation. That's why it got passed when it did. Frankly, I didn't follow that battle closely (I knew it would be passed eventually) and really don't know what the problems were. Or who caused them. I seriously doubt it was President Obama. Could the President have gotten it passed earlier? Maybe. If he really wanted to use up favors, probably. I suspect President Obama could also get my nearest neighbor to stop letting errant trash blow into my yard. But I don't think that is Obama's proper job, either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, I;ve given quotes and specifics showing how Obama, Pelosi and Reid could care less about public opinion or approval and it's gone unaddressed or responded to so I see little use in continuing it. We will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Uncas, I assume the quotes you offered have to do with the budget we have been referring to here for hours, since it would make little sense to use them if they are not. Can you provide that link to the comments along with the date they were made? Thank you, |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think a budget was passed in the last Congress because the Dems didn't want to take a hit in the elections for making the cuts needed just prior to the elections, so they kicked it down to the next Congress. And now they will blame the Republicans as often as possible and as loudly as possible for any of the cuts that were made prior to the next election, even though they themselves would have had to make tough cuts also, if they had bothered to do their job instead of playing politics. Ron I don't know anybody, myself included, who would not give Obama a good rating on the economy if he started implementing policies that would grow the economy. But I'm sure there are some who wouldn't give him a good grade no matter what he did. And what's not to like about the Tea Party? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
The quotes are from Obama's weekly address in February Mike. http://www.wkyt.com/blogs/neilsnotebook/President_Obamas_weekly_address_We_cannot_allow_gridlock_to_prevail_117068128.html quote: Have you any specific policies in mind Denise? quote: Their lack of any detailed and specific policies perhaps? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I didn't address it, Mike, because one, I didn't think it was relevant to the point, two, I disagreed with virtually all of your examples being "unpopular," and three, even were you to find an example we could both agree upon I suspect it would just be the exception that proves the rule. What do I mean by that last? Elected politicians care what the voters think EXCEPT when the voters are wrong and the politician has the courage to vote his conscience. Civil rights comes immediately to mind. Ford's pardon for Nixon is probably an even better example. It made Ford unelectable and was hugely unpopular at the time; history and hindsight, however, have made vastly different judgments. It was the right thing to do, not for Nixon but for the country, and Ford did the right thing in spite of the cost to his political career. To me that's the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Sadly, most politicians don't have that kind of integrity. Which is why I've said many times in these threads, the people generally get exactly what they deserve. Or, at least, what they think they wanted. Two thousand years later, it's still all about bread and circuses. And in some small part, Mike, I suspect it's because too many people think their only role as citizens is to cast their vote every two or four years. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I like Ryan's proposal, as do most of the Tea Party folks I know. Is that specific enough? My question was directed at Ron, though, with all due respect. I already know your thoughts on the Tea Party, Uncas, and since Ron made that commment about not liking too much about them I was just curious as to what it is that he doesn't like. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks, uncas. That's about what I thought....and the comments have nothing to do with our discussion of the budget Democrats ignored passing and Obama not pressuring them to do so. Those comments refer to the budget he is try to pass NOW, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. You can't take those comments and make any valid point except that it is what he is saying NOW. There are many comparisons. He said republicans could ride in the back while democrats drove the bus. He said republicans and democrats must put aside political differences and work together. What happened between those two statements? An election that took the House away from him. He said raising the deficit was dangerous and almost criminal. He said not raising the limit would destroy the United States. What was the difference? He became president and wants it raised. Nice work if you can take a statement referring to something he wants currently and extend it to things in the past and pawn it off as "standard Obama thinking". It ain't so, Joe. Your examples mean nothing except to show how his mind constantly changes.....and we have plenty of those examples already. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Elected politicians care what the voters think EXCEPT when the voters are wrong and the politician has the courage to vote his conscience. Sadly, most politicians don't have that kind of integrity. Thank God we have omnipotent politicians and what a shame they don't have integrity. Do you REALLY think Obama is doing what he has done because he is so much smarter than the majority of voters who disagree with him and he knows he is our savior? Is this one of those Dad saying, "Son, this will hurt me more than it hurts you" as the paddle whizzes through the air toward his son's bottom? Guess what? It's not hurting them at all. They are fine. They are not going to be under the same health care programs the rest of us will be. Their salaries will not be reduced. There will be no food stamps in their future. Can you honestly look at Pelosi's actions since she took over the House and say all that she has done, she has done for the good of the country....or for the good of Pelosi and the party? You don't have three saviors, Ron, three sages blessed with mind power so superior to the masses that they know what's good for them, even as they make thme suffer. You have three people drunk with the new found power they have and feel they don't have to respond to anyone for their actions. By the time the consequences of their actions come to fruition, Obama will be gone and simply mutter, "Well, I did my best but Bush left me too much of a mess" as he heads for the golf course. I simply find it incredible that otherwise intelligent people cannot see what is happening before their eyes, or can see it but refuse to acknowledge it. SOunds like I feel that I know much better than those who disagree with me. Well, since you applaud politicians who feel that way, I'll take it as a good thing!  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"During the summer of 2009, in the early stages of the health care debate, a frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., lamented that he wasn't getting any cooperation from Republicans. ... This 'Party of No' rhetoric was parroted by nearly every liberal writer. It is less common today, now that the tables have turned. The new Republican House majority has passed a serious proposal to reform the broken entitlement system and avert national insolvency. Not only has Reid refused to work with the GOP on a budget, but he said it would be 'foolish' for Democrats to release one of their own. And last Wednesday, Senate Democrats gave new meaning to the label the 'Party of No' when they held a series of four budget votes. Not a single Democrat voted for any budget proposal, including Obama's own plan, which was rejected by a unanimous 97-to-0 vote. Democrats have settled on a political strategy of isolating and attacking the Ryan plan instead of offering constructive solutions that could leave them open to attack. If history is any guide, this is a winning election strategy. But it is not necessarily responsible governance. The nation faces an unprecedented debt crisis that makes the problems in the health care system pale in comparison. ... As tempting as it is for Republicans to blast Democrats' inaction, they would do much better to go on offense and attack the bad ideas Democrats have already embraced." --The Washington Examiner |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Senate Democrats haven't passed their own budget plan in more than two years, despite having strong control of that body. Meanwhile, the nation is teetering on bankruptcy. I don't make that statement lightly. Our national debt is $14.3 trillion, and our federal deficit is $1.65 trillion. ... Republicans will make a mistake if they continue to be in counterattack mode, waiting for the latest Democratic broadside to respond. They should be on the airwaves every morning and every night presenting the nightmarish facts and their proposal to end the nightmare and exposing the Democrats for the reckless rogues they are. Time's running out." --columnist David Limbaugh |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, and I stopped beating my wife, too. You're asking loaded questions, Mike, and apparently expecting me to walk right into them. Obama doesn't have to be smarter than the majority of voters who disagree with him unless we first acknowledge there really IS a majority who disagree with him. I don't think that's the case, at least not on any of the issues you've mentioned so far. Your question, therefore, makes little sense. In the abstract, however . . . Thomas Jefferson believed the average person was ill-equipped to handle the complexities of politics. I tend to agree with that sentiment. People are short sighted and easily convinced by really silly propaganda that rarely stands up to even the slightest scrutiny. Apparently if you say "death panel" often enough, people start to believe it. People, by and large, have forgotten how to think for themselves. The role of a good leader is to counter the silly propaganda and convince the people to support the leader's agenda. When the agenda is a good one, we end up with Winston Churchill. When it's a bad one, we get Adolph Hitler. The role of a great leader is to convince the people to not only support his agenda, but to actually believe in it. It's important, however, to convince through persuasion and oratory, as we saw abundantly during the first 100 years of American history and sporadically since, not through brute force and lies. Aluminum tube centrifuges don't cut it. When we don't have good leaders, when we go too long without finding a great leader, the people . . . end up getting pretty much what None of which is to suggest that the people should be (or can be) ignored. Politician have to listen to them, and I think most do. Leaders, however, have to lead them. Essentially, the leaders have to tell the people what to say to the politicians. quote: First, Mike, let me say that I don't particularly like Nancy Pelosi, but I also don't really follow "all that she has done" in Congress. At best, I get the highlights. Why? Because she doesn't represent me in Washington. Pelosi represents a relatively small number of people in Northern California. They voted for her, while I can't vote either for her or against her. Second, let me reiterate feelings I've expressed in the forums a few times in the past. In our current political atmosphere, "For the good of Pelosi and the party" has become very difficult to separate from the good of the country. Nixon wasn't out to destroy this country; he just believed HE could do more good for the country than anyone else. That kind of attitude leads too many politicians to do what ever it takes to get and stay in office. It's certainly not an attitude that is limited to Pelosi or even just one political party. However, it is exactly that same attitude that makes our politicians listen to the voters. But the voters first have to speak up and, lately, the Tea Party seems to be the only group willing to do that. Personally, I think it's very clear that both parties have at least been listening to what the Tea Party has to say? I think I'll take a pass on your sound bites, Mike. There's actually a few good points in them, but the good points are buried beneath histrionics and partisan back stabbing. Responding to someone else's propaganda is a waste of time if only because there's SO much of it out there. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I think you're getting confused Mike, which is understandable given the overlap of the 2011 budget and the 2012 budget. The 2011 budget was the one we were talking about, the one that got stalled in Congress and went past the allotted deadline of Sept 2010. That budget was presented to Congress by Obama, on time, at the beginning of 2010, The radio address from Obama I linked to was directly related to the 2011 budget - urging Congress to get their finger out and present him with a budget to sign, which they did shortly after. The budget discussions currently underway are twofold, the first is whether to raise the allowed debt ceiling so that the government can actually spend the money that's just been agreed in the 2011 budget. The second is a debate regarding the 2012 budget, which was presented to Congress in Feb this year by Obama and won't be overdue until the deadline of Sept 2011. Obama can't pressure them to pass that budget until after that date. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
unless we first acknowledge there really IS a majority who disagree with him. I don't think that's the case, at least not on any of the issues you've mentioned so far. Really? You will show me in some way, I suppose, where the majority was in favor of ObamaCare? That's an issue I've mentioned so far? Then perhaps you will show me where a majority was in favor of cap and trade, another issue I've mentioned so far? Thomas Jefferson believed the average person was ill-equipped to handle the complexities of politics. Trust me, Ron, you don't want to reference Thomas Jefferson unless you want the dozens of his quotes which would blow Obama out of the water. The role of a great leader is to convince the people to not only support his agenda, but to actually believe in it. Obviously then, we don't have a great leader since the majority of the peopl do not approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. Because she doesn't represent me in Washington. Pelosi represents a relatively small number of people in Northern California. They voted for her, while I can't vote either for her or against her. I see. So you don't feel the Speaker of the House has any power to influence decisions concerning anyone but her own constituents? That's a pretty amazing statement. Pelosi almost singlehandedly got Obamacare through the House. Does that mean ObamaCare only concerns the people who voted for Pelosi? Pelosi has power over decisions that influence you, Ron, whether you voted for her or not. I think I'll take a pass on your sound bites, Mike. There's actually a few good points in them, but the good points are buried beneath histrionics and partisan back stabbing. Responding to someone else's propaganda is a waste of time if only because there's SO much of it out there. I'm sorry you feel that way, Ron. I don't present them as sound bytes, partisan back stabbing, hysteria or propaganda. There is sincerity in those lines, whether you can see it or not, along with love for my country and sadness for what this administration is doing to it. If you see it as nothing more than ranting, then that's my fault not yours. I know you don't mean your comment as a personal insult but it shows how conversations like this are basically little more than a waste of time. I'll try not to waste your time in the future. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Are you suggesting that people aren't interested in their health care, Mike? Or in the price of gas? What kind of proof do you need in order to recognize that people want those problems solved? No doubt you want to talk about the details of the solutions proposed? I'm on record for not liking the health care solution that passed and for liking the (start of a) solution to the energy problems we face. However, like the vast majority of Americans, I wanted to see SOMETHING done. And it was. quote: The majority of the people don't approve of the economy, Mike. Period. The problem with polls is that, by and large, they are meaningless. Not only do the answers depend on the questions, the answers require absolutely no effort and not a great deal more thought. The other day, I asked a fellow in the restaurant up town whether he thought people should still be smoking. It came up because Michigan only began disallowing smoking in public buildings (like the restaurant) last year. The fellow pursed his lips, shook his head slowly, and finally answered, "Prob'ly not," in that slow drawl common to farmers in the Midwest. Fifteen minutes later, as I pulled out of the parking lot, I saw him standing on the street corner lighting a cigarette. What people say matters a great deal less than what they do. If the Presidential election was this November, Mike, instead of eighteen months away, who do you think would win? THAT is how many people disapprove of Obama today. (And, sure, it could change by next month, let alone next year.) quote: Didn't say that. I said I have no control over what she does, so I don't track her every move -- which is what you were asking me to comment on in the earlier post. quote: I think (hope) you misunderstood what I meant by sound bites, Mike. I was referring to your quotations that were posts number 39 and 40, apparently words written by The Washington Examiner and David Limbaugh. Without links, I might add, though I suspect I could find them if I wanted. If those folks want to come to the forum and register, I'll be happy to explain why half of what they say is wrong (and which half I might agree with). I have never questioned your sincerity, Mike, nor your good intent. We actually agree on more things than we disagree on . . . but no one ever sees me nodding my head when that happens. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, what's not to like about the Tea Party? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sigh. Sadly, Denise, I don't have time to write a book. Or to go back through the Alley and dig out all the threads where rumor and innuendo promoted by the Tea Party has been posted and then refuted for the garbage it usually is. While I often admire their passion, passion without critical reasoning is extraordinarily dangerous. Not to mention darn irritating.  The best I can do to answer your question is to say . . . just about everything. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "While I often admire their passion, passion without critical reasoning is extraordinarily dangerous. Not to mention darn irritating." Pretty much sums up my gripe with the Left. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't remember any rumors or innuendo being put forth by the Tea Party or of any instances where such alleged rumors or innuendo had supposedly been refuted. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I'm not entirely certain I agree, John. But, tell me, what do you think of the Left, itself? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
