two things I'm really getting sick of.

[actinanass]

I'm really getting sick of hearing President Obama bitch about republicans NOT working with him now. MF you come in to office back in 2009, telling republicans the "get down, or lay down" speech. You had a fucking supermajority. YOU DIDN'T NEED MY SIDE. You could of did whatever you fucking want pretty much law wise. I would of respected him more if he would of just did what he wanted to do, and ran with it. Especially if you didn't need ONE vote from the right.

Another thing I'm getting sick of hearing. I'm getting sick of hearing "well this was worst than we thought". Really? So, why the fuck did you focus SOOOOOO much on health care then? If this was really that bad, wouldn't all your energy go towards fixing this situation? Not to mention, perhaps if you would of focus more on the economy then, you might could of got a more bipartisan health care bill that you claimed you wanted.

I know I'm speaking to a brick wall when I pull up these concerns on this board. This man can do no wrong in many eyes. I'll go back in silent mode......

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You insist on creating threads that do nothing but expose your own ignorance and I dont understand that at all.


If you can factually dispute anything I post, feel free.
He NEVER had a supermajority, not one day. Cut off your right wing media that lies to you daily and read up on it. They had 57 Democrats from January to July, waiting on Al Franken to be sworn in. There were two Independents, one a strong liberal and the other a man who caucused with the Democrats but actually supported John McCain. A man Senator Obama had to pull to the side after a Senate session about the vitriol he was directing at the candidate.
After Franken was sworn in, he had two persistent problems: Blue Dog Democrats who fought against his agenda and Republicans' abuse of the filibuster rules.
Even with those hindrances, the first thing he accomplished was pass the Recovery Act, which was shrunken and watered down to get conservative Democratic votes and hopefully peel off a Republican vote or two (mainly Olympia Snowe and/or Susan Collins from Maine).
So he did often need votes from the Republicans because Blanche Lincoln and/or Ben Nelson and/or Mary Landrieu and/or Independent Joe Lieberman would vote against them.
He focused on healthcare AFTER passing the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act had job creating mechanisms in it and that has been proven out since many months when other industries have lost jobs, the health care industry has been creating private sector jobs.

It's not a case of you speaking to a brick wall, just that you're speaking garbage to people that know better and you refuse to truthfully acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[actinanass]

You insist on creating threads that do nothing but expose your own ignorance and I dont understand that at all.


If you can factually dispute anything I post, feel free.
He NEVER had a supermajority, not one day. Cut off your right wing media that lies to you daily and read up on it. They had 57 Democrats from January to July, waiting on Al Franken to be sworn in. There were two Independents, one a strong liberal and the other a man who caucused with the Democrats but actually supported John McCain. A man Senator Obama had to pull to the side after a Senate session about the vitriol he was directing at the candidate.
After Franken was sworn in, he had two persistent problems: Blue Dog Democrats who fought against his agenda and Republicans' abuse of the filibuster rules.
Even with those hindrances, the first thing he accomplished was pass the Recovery Act, which was shrunken and watered down to get conservative Democratic votes and hopefully peel off a Republican vote or two (mainly Olympia Snowe and/or Susan Collins from Maine).
So he did often need votes from the Republicans because Blanche Lincoln and/or Ben Nelson and/or Mary Landrieu and/or Independent Joe Lieberman would vote against them.
He focused on healthcare AFTER passing the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act had job creating mechanisms in it and that has been proven out since many months when other industries have lost jobs, the health care industry has been creating private sector jobs.

It's not a case of you speaking to a brick wall, just that you're speaking garbage to people that know better and you refuse to truthfully acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

well fuck it. Did he have a majority? Didn't he get the health care bill pass with no republican support?

BTW, he could of let the Bush tax cuts expired right?

Republicans had no power in two years, and you know it. Quit fucking making excuses for this weak ass party.

I mean can you, and people on here give Obama ANY criticism? Hell I've gave Bush criticism over shit *the bailouts, not fighting the war right*. You just can't own up to any damn thing. This is why I don't fucking engage in serious debates anymore.

The folks on the left, on this board, will support President Obama no matter what. That's just fact, and it's cool. I expect this....

 

[Upgrade Dave]

well fuck it. Did he have a majority? Didn't he get the health care bill pass with no republican support?

Whoa. There's a difference between a "majority" and a "supermajority". You apparently know that because you changed your wording.
He did get it through without Republican votes but only after cutting a deal with Ben Nelson, that was later thrown out in reconciliation.
Republicans were uniformly against it, though it contained a lot of Republican ideas, most notably the "individual mandate".

BTW, he could of let the Bush tax cuts expired right?

He could have but doing so in the heat of a deep recession(depression) or the beginnings of a recovery would have been disastrous for the economy.
If the Republicans had worked with him, he could have extended them for the working classes and only raised them on the rich, correct?
See how that can go?

Republicans had no power in two years, and you know it. Quit fucking making excuses for this weak ass party.

It's not an excuse when it's the truth.
The Republicans in the Senate did have power and exercised it when they abused the filibuster rule in historic proportions, that's what I know.
The party has a tendency to be weak and to try to govern responsibly for the most part in the last 4 yrs. Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't even attempted to be responsible and think that's a show of strength when it's really a show of recklessness.
In fact on the many, many political posts and threads on this board and the main, I've lambasted Harry Reid for his weakness (minus the last couple months) and the Blue Dogs for their duplicity.

I mean can you, and people on here give Obama ANY criticism? Hell I've gave Bush criticism over shit *the bailouts, not fighting the war right*. You just can't own up to any damn thing. This is why I don't fucking engage in serious debates anymore.

The folks on the left, on this board, will support President Obama no matter what. That's just fact, and it's cool. I expect this....

1.
You don't engage in serious debates because your information ALWAYS horribly wrong. ALWAYS.

2.
If those of your like mind would criticize him honestly instead of relying on long disproven lies, you would see quite few places of common criticism.
I hate the way he's continued on Bush's pattern of secrecy and his handling of the NDA.
I hate his continued crackdown on marijuana dispensers in states where marijuana is legal through prescription. Where are the state's rights people over that one (Ron Paul excepted and expected).
3. I know he ran on doubling down on Afghanistan but it's time to pull our troops out and at a faster rate than 2014.
4. I like the ACA but I think it's implementation is too slow as well.

I thought the stimulus should have been bigger (but I understand why it wasn't) and his part of the bailouts should have been even more stringent without the financial reform bill.


There's no such thing as a perfect President but when the opposition resorts to lying or minimizing their own contributions to negative situations, someone should set the record straight.

 

[QueEx]

i'm really getting sick of hearing president obama bitch about republicans not working with him now . . .

. . .

You insist on creating threads that do nothing but expose your own ignorance and i dont understand that at all.

i listens [sic] to rush everyday . . .

 

[yureeka9]

 

[actinanass]

Whoa. There's a difference between a "majority" and a "supermajority". You apparently know that because you changed your wording.
He did get it through without Republican votes but only after cutting a deal with Ben Nelson, that was later thrown out in reconciliation.
Republicans were uniformly against it, though it contained a lot of Republican ideas, most notably the "individual mandate".



He could have but doing so in the heat of a deep recession(depression) or the beginnings of a recovery would have been disastrous for the economy.
If the Republicans had worked with him, he could have extended them for the working classes and only raised them on the rich, correct?
See how that can go?



It's not an excuse when it's the truth.
The Republicans in the Senate did have power and exercised it when they abused the filibuster rule in historic proportions, that's what I know.
The party has a tendency to be weak and to try to govern responsibly for the most part in the last 4 yrs. Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't even attempted to be responsible and think that's a show of strength when it's really a show of recklessness.
In fact on the many, many political posts and threads on this board and the main, I've lambasted Harry Reid for his weakness (minus the last couple months) and the Blue Dogs for their duplicity.



1.
You don't engage in serious debates because your information ALWAYS horribly wrong. ALWAYS.

2.
If those of your like mind would criticize him honestly instead of relying on long disproven lies, you would see quite few places of common criticism.
I hate the way he's continued on Bush's pattern of secrecy and his handling of the NDA.
I hate his continued crackdown on marijuana dispensers in states where marijuana is legal through prescription. Where are the state's rights people over that one (Ron Paul excepted and expected).
3. I know he ran on doubling down on Afghanistan but it's time to pull our troops out and at a faster rate than 2014.
4. I like the ACA but I think it's implementation is too slow as well.

I thought the stimulus should have been bigger (but I understand why it wasn't) and his part of the bailouts should have been even more stringent without the financial reform bill.


There's no such thing as a perfect President but when the opposition resorts to lying or minimizing their own contributions to negative situations, someone should set the record straight.

1. The first statement proves my whole point.

2. Hold up, I thought the reason Clinton's economy did so well because of the raised taxes? That's what he's been running on right now. Clinton era taxes, but not Clinton era spending.

3. Well, I'll give you that, you did criticize Reid.

 

[thoughtone]

*sigh* Obama might have to fire Holder.

Yet, you have all the credibility. So typical...


I'm worried about you dude. Seriously....

I would like to see how ignorant I will be when Palin is running against Obama.

Even when I'm serious, people think I'm being sarcastic...

Today is May 14, 2012.

Today I officially say "I won't be surprise if Obama lose in a landslide".

Now, I'm not officially saying it's going to happen due to Romney, but I won't be surprised.

Investigation finds no evidence Holder knew of 'Fast and Furious' gun-running sting

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. The first statement proves my whole point.

2. Hold up, I thought the reason Clinton's economy did so well because of the raised taxes? That's what he's been running on right now. Clinton era taxes, but not Clinton era spending.

3. Well, I'll give you that, you did criticize Reid.

I dont see anyone saying we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for it and so is everyone else, Left or Right. The issue is what to cut. I, like most liberals, think the Bush tax cuts for upper earners is an excellent starting place (tax cuts are spending). Also multi billion dollar subsidies for energy companies is a good one. I'd throw in multi billion dollar subsidies for corporate farms.
How much money are we wasting in Guantanamo? Tear it down, bring those guys here, try them and the guilty (that can't be shipped back home) should be kept in the many empty supermax prisons dotting the country. That would save money and create jobs.
End the war in Afghanistan, huge savings and bring home the remaininig troops in Iraq. If the current heads cant keep control, tough shit.
You have it mixed up. It's not really the position that the Clinton era was prosperous because of higher taxes but that the Clinton era was more prosperous with higher taxes. That's been the true counter to the argument from those on the Right who insist that raising taxes, on anyone at anytime, hurts the economy. They say despite recent history under Democratic and Republican administrations.

 

[actinanass]

I dont see anyone saying we shouldn't cut spending. I'm all for it and so is everyone else, Left or Right. The issue is what to cut. I, like most liberals, think the Bush tax cuts for upper earners is an excellent starting place (tax cuts are spending). Also multi billion dollar subsidies for energy companies is a good one. I'd throw in multi billion dollar subsidies for corporate farms.
How much money are we wasting in Guantanamo? Tear it down, bring those guys here, try them and the guilty (that can't be shipped back home) should be kept in the many empty supermax prisons dotting the country. That would save money and create jobs.
End the war in Afghanistan, huge savings and bring home the remaininig troops in Iraq. If the current heads cant keep control, tough shit.
You have it mixed up. It's not really the position that the Clinton era was prosperous because of higher taxes but that the Clinton era was more prosperous with higher taxes. That's been the true counter to the argument from those on the Right who insist that raising taxes, on anyone at anytime, hurts the economy. They say despite recent history under Democratic and Republican administrations.

This goes back to 2010. If that tax rate was really that big of a deal, why not let it expire? It's not like we are so well ahead of that point in this "recovery".

You are right. No one is disagreeing about what to cut, however, I don't believe that Obama wants to cut ANYTHING from his agenda. You can't compromise with that.

 

[Lamarr]

You have it mixed up. It's not really the position that the Clinton era was prosperous because of higher taxes but that the Clinton era was more prosperous with higher taxes. That's been the true counter to the argument from those on the Right who insist that raising taxes, on anyone at anytime, hurts the economy. They say despite recent history under Democratic and Republican administrations.

Some issues not taken into account with the Clinton era:

1) It was the beginning of the "dot-com bubble".....so there was a lot of liquidity in the market. The powers that be needed to "mask" the fact the nation was systemically being deindustrialized through legislation like NAFTA.

2) Clinton's spendidng was approx. $1.7 Trillion while tax receipts were in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion. Like clinton said at the DNC "it's simple mathematics"

My issue with Pres. Obama or any other politician is; why would you attempt to spend $3.8 Trillion when your tax receipts are only approx $2.5 Trill? Thats contrary to what Pres. Clinton

The amount of govt. we had when Clinton was Pres. is what the nation can afford ($1.7 Trillion worth) Which is why I support the repeal of every piece of legislation for the last 15 years.

Oh yeah, along with your list of "cuts", add the entire Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

[actinanass]

Some issues not taken into account with the Clinton era:

1) It was the beginning of the "dot-com bubble".....so there was a lot of liquidity in the market. The powers that be needed to "mask" the fact the nation was systemically being deindustrialized through legislation like NAFTA.

2) Clinton's spendidng was approx. $1.7 Trillion while tax receipts were in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion. Like clinton said at the DNC "it's simple mathematics"

My issue with Pres. Obama or any other politician is; why would you attempt to spend $3.8 Trillion when your tax receipts are only approx $2.5 Trill? Thats contrary to what Pres. Clinton

The amount of govt. we had when Clinton was Pres. is what the nation can afford ($1.7 Trillion worth) Which is why I support the repeal of every piece of legislation for the last 15 years.

Oh yeah, along with your list of "cuts", add the entire Dept. of Homeland Security.

thats why I said, President Obama wants the Clinton taxes without the clinton cuts.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This goes back to 2010. If that tax rate was really that big of a deal, why not let it expire? It's not like we are so well ahead of that point in this "recovery".

You are right. No one is disagreeing about what to cut, however, I don't believe that Obama wants to cut ANYTHING from his agenda. You can't compromise with that.

I already answered this. The recovery was in it's infancy and with the Republicans holding strong on not raising taxes at all, letting them expire would have been the entirely wrong decision and the GOP in Congress knew that which is why they assumed their reckless, irresponsible posture.

Obama has not only compromised, many on the Left say he's compromised too much. Now where has the compromise come from on the Right?

Some issues not taken into account with the Clinton era:

1) It was the beginning of the "dot-com bubble".....so there was a lot of liquidity in the market. The powers that be needed to "mask" the fact the nation was systemically being deindustrialized through legislation like NAFTA.

2) Clinton's spendidng was approx. $1.7 Trillion while tax receipts were in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion. Like clinton said at the DNC "it's simple mathematics"

My issue with Pres. Obama or any other politician is; why would you attempt to spend $3.8 Trillion when your tax receipts are only approx $2.5 Trill? Thats contrary to what Pres. Clinton

The amount of govt. we had when Clinton was Pres. is what the nation can afford ($1.7 Trillion worth) Which is why I support the repeal of every piece of legislation for the last 15 years.

Oh yeah, along with your list of "cuts", add the entire Dept. of Homeland Security.

I would add that to the list, most definitely. There are more efficient ways to demand the intelligence and law enforcement communities work together and share relevent information without an entirely new cabinet position and bureaucracy being created.

thats why I said, President Obama wants the Clinton taxes without the clinton cuts.

That's not what you said. You said "Clinton spending".

That's what he's been running on right now. Clinton era taxes, but not Clinton era spending

But if you completely end the two wars Bush never put on the books (skewing all comparisons between his budgets and deficits and Obama's) and gradually phase out the Bush tax cuts, you a lot closer to Clinton era spending and quickly. Your preferred candidate isn't running on any of this but since deficits don't really matter to Republicans, I'm not surprised.

 

[thoughtone]

thats why I said, President Obama wants the Clinton taxes without the clinton cuts.

Oh yea?

 

[thoughtone]

Some issues not taken into account with the Clinton era:

1) It was the beginning of the "dot-com bubble".....so there was a lot of liquidity in the market. The powers that be needed to "mask" the fact the nation was systemically being deindustrialized through legislation like NAFTA.

2) Clinton's spendidng was approx. $1.7 Trillion while tax receipts were in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion. Like clinton said at the DNC "it's simple mathematics"

My issue with Pres. Obama or any other politician is; why would you attempt to spend $3.8 Trillion when your tax receipts are only approx $2.5 Trill? Thats contrary to what Pres. Clinton

The amount of govt. we had when Clinton was Pres. is what the nation can afford ($1.7 Trillion worth) Which is why I support the repeal of every piece of legislation for the last 15 years.

Oh yeah, along with your list of "cuts", add the entire Dept. of Homeland Security.

I demand an apology for this waste of my tax dollars exercises of the peoples government. It accomplished nothing!

 

[Lamarr]

I would add that to the list, most definitely. There are more efficient ways to demand the intelligence and law enforcement communities work together and share relevent information without an entirely new cabinet position and bureaucracy being created.

Yes, this was one of the issues where I agreed with Clinton. He handled the first World Trade attack as a law enforcement issue & didn't create another layer of bureacracy.

But if you completely end the two wars Bush never put on the books (skewing all comparisons between his budgets and deficits and Obama's) and gradually phase out the Bush tax cuts, you a lot closer to Clinton era spending and quickly. Your preferred candidate isn't running on any of this but since deficits don't really matter to Republicans, I'm not surprised.

Correct, thats the main reason I can't support RMoney, however, tax cuts are good! I would advocate a permanent, "across the board" tax cut. The Bush tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax receipts....No?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Yes, this was one of the issues where I agreed with Clinton. He handled the first World Trade attack as a law enforcement issue & didn't create another layer of bureacracy.

John Kerry said that and he was destroyed by nearly every camp, including the "liberal media".

Correct, thats the main reason I can't support RMoney, however, tax cuts are good! I would advocate a permanent, "across the board" tax cut. The Bush tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax receipts....No?

But tax cuts are spending and a huge source of the current deficit is the current tax cuts. Tax cuts are good when you can afford them.
I'm not anti-tax cuts, I just want people to call them what they are.