It seems to me that Obama is on a mission to stay on the Love Train with the GOP. He's sent a clear message (one among many) to the Democratic base that he's not the man he campaigned as, but he's closer to Bush's Third Term.
Obama has cut a deal with the GOP to extend the Bush era tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, calling it "the right thing to do", despite campaigning on the promise to get rid of them, citing them as one of the causes of the economic collapse of 2008.
The deal would extend the Bush era tax cuts for 24 months with the GOP allowing unemployment compensation to extend for another 13 months.
Now that's compromise, Obama style. Give the GOP literally twice as much as you get back from them in return.
But it gets worse. On top of that it would give a $5 million exemption to the estate tax so we can continue to stupidly protect old money, while cutting payroll taxes by 2%. This is a good thing for average workers, but without raising the FICA cap, it will contribute to more deficits.
Given that we're 13 trillion in the hole, and the GOP sitting on the fence about raising the debt ceiling, you'd think Obama would have at least thought to compromise on that as well, since this move will increase the deficit.
It seems to me that Obama is on a mission to make sure he has a primary challenger in 2012. His endless backstabbing of his base has raised this question before, but now it seems like a certainty.
Willy's advice to Obama: Get off that Love Train with the GOP, and listen to another tune.
The good news is that Senator Bernie Sanders has promised to filibuster this compromise. Looks like Willy is going to have to send the good Senator from Vermont a check.
-- Modified on 12/7/2010 10:24:05 AM
...but I figured this needed to be recycled. If Pria is still around, yes, I know it's "lose".
Do you really think that a tax cut extension for those earning under $250K would have passed in congress, without it being extended for those making over $250K?
the extension without the bailout to billionaires already passed in the House. It could have passed in the Senate if the Dems had anything remotely resembling leadership in that chamber. But instead we got Harry Reid.
What is so frustrating about this, is that the history on this is overwhelmingly clear. Tax cuts lead to flat or bubble economies. The data already shows that we're reinflating another bubble. That bubble bursting could put us in an even worse situation then we're in right now.
Tax increases on the other hand, especially on the top marginal rates has NEVER FAILED to produce more economic growth and lower unemployment. That's what we just lost out on.
I said: "Do you really think that a tax cut extension for those earning under $250K would have passed in congress, without it being extended for those making over $250K?"
You said: "It could have passed in the Senate if the Dems had anything remotely resembling leadership in that chamber. But instead we got Harry Reid."
Do you see the difference? I said, WOULD, and you said COULD IF, and with given the totality of what you said, was saying no, it would not have passed because the lack of leadership on Harry Reid's part. Hence, President Obama took what he could get passed through Congress.
...Obama could have picked up the phone and pressured Reid to show some backbone. Lyndon Johnson did it, so can Obama.
The question is, why didn't Obama do this?
And, even if Reid tried, the individual Democratic Senators have many competing interests to consider, but the main one each of them looks at is their electability. If President Obama, or Reid asks them to do something they see as political suicide (voting against the public opinion of their constituents), they are not going to do it.
...or more likely had a laugh over fucking over the people who put them in office.
There was no worries of political suicide here. The public backs this idea pretty damn strongly.
"the people who put them in office." "The public backs this idea pretty damn strongly."
I didn't know they were mutually exclusive. Actually, in my mind, I was under the impression that there was a significant overlap.
LBJ couldn't even win his own parties nomination for reelection, why would Obama want to emulate him?
Obama may be smarter, or at least more pragmatic than I have given him credit for. Holding firm on left wing, Democratic ideologies would be political suicide for Obama. So the answer is, "Obama is too smart to follow your advice", He may even be smart enough to get reelected.
Johnson got southern Democrats to give in on filibustering Civil Rights. Of course, Johnson also had a spine and principles. He's the only President that I can think of who voluntarily opted to not run for re-election because he had enough decency and patriotism in him to put his country first.
Obama's "pragmatism" might be his political demise. Only 18% are in favor of continuing these tax breaks for the wealthy, and 60% want them ended.
When you have two houses of Congress with strong majorities, and 60% of the people behind you, to not get this passed shows a complete lack of leadership. Obama's base, the only group Obama seems content in fighting, is now calling for a primary challenge come 2012.
It usually means I get to keep a little bit more of "my money" in my own pocket.
I do seem to remember you rejoicing in the fact that capital gains taxes were going up by 33% after the new year. Sucks to lose doesn't it? lmao
Unless the country has completely collapsed economically by 2012, Obama will be the nominee, and between extending the tax cuts for "us" rich people, the two percent cut in payroll taxes, and QE2, Obama has given himself the best chance for the economy to right itself, even if only temporarily.
The payroll tax cut will help main st, the other tax cut extensions will help Wall St, and QE2 will help both. I know you will almost certainly disagree with me on all three assessments, but do you know what? I don't really give a fuck lmao
but even you have to agree, once the primaries are over and Obama is the nominee, the left is still going to vote for him. It's not like they are all of a sudden going to defect to the GOP.
That's where McCain made his most serious blunder, instead coming back to the middle in the GE like all smart candidates do, he chose to move to the right at the expense of whatever support he had in the center, a huge blunder IMO, but I don't think he could have won anyhow, the nation wanted a change, but now they don't seem to happy with that change, even Obama is objective enough to realize that and is making changes to his approach much like Bill Clinton did in 96
...but it now appears that the only people who will see their taxes raised are those making under 40k. Looks like that Main Street boost is gone faster than you can say "tax shelter". Making things worse, another COLA has been denied to Social Security recipents. There goes Obama's "best chance".
Did you just sleep thru the last election GaG? You know, the one where 70% of the people who stayed home were Obama voters from '08?
The Clinton scam worked in 96 because we were at peace and prosperity. We ain't got either now, and economically speaking, the country is in flames. How long do you think it will be GaG before the rabble gets restless?
raising the capital gains rate would represent a 33.3% tax increase to me. My tax savings alone over the next couple of years will probably exceed your total income for the next ten. lol
The bright side of things is with that extra money, I will be able to hire several more employees, who will all pay into the system instead of continuing to drain the nation by drawing unemployment that all of the rest of us have to pay for.
and just how do you come up with this tax increase for those making under 40k? they are the ones most effected by the 2% payroll tax reduction.
if President Obama was going to give in on taxes, then he should have demanded in return that:
1) There is a vote on START before end of the lame duck session....In past administrations, something like this would pass 100-0....Never before have we seen a party fuck w/national security to play politics....
2) Vote on DREAM Act before end of session.
3) Votes on ALL 30+ judicial nominess that have already cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee AND this includes up/down votes on Goodwin Liu, Edward Chen, Louis Butler, and Robert Chitgny....
I'm so disappointed in President Obama, however having said that, I will no doubt vote for him in 2012, because the republican alternative will be TOOOOO far right....Remember this isn't your fathers republican party anymore...Long gone are moderates like Nelson Rockafeller, Gerald Ford, Licoln Chaffee, etc., what remains are people further to the right of Rush Limbaugh...
Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and Gerald Ford would never make it thru a primary in todays republican party...
Hitler, but he was left of Stalan.
The true bleeding heart libs will never abandon the Democratic party, Obama has no fears of that. It's the moderates and independents he needs to reach out to, and he just took a major step in that direction.
Any candidate for POTUS has two basic strategies he/she can follow to get elected. One is to mobilize his base, that really is not an option for Obama, the welfare mothers, and other lazy ass socialists that made up his base is already so disillusioned with him that they are unlikely to ever see the inside of a voting booth again.
The other option is to go after the moderates and independents. This seems a much more viable strategy, especially since it looks likely that the GOP will wrest control of Congress. Palin supporters aside, many moderate Republicans may come over to the Obama side if the GOP nominate a far right candidate like a Huckabee (politically DOA already) or a Palin.
The far left, (Moosie type) voters are going to vote for Obama no matter what, just like the far right voters (liorr types) are going to vote for whoever the GOP nominates. Obama has the luxury of being the incumbent, he should not need to pander too hard to the loony left in order to get the nomination. The GOP candidate, partly because of the Palin phenomenon may have to go so far to the right to get nominated that they will never be able to get far enough back to center to win the GE.
I'm NOT singing the praises of President Obama....Hardly...He's governing like a centrist, he's no liberal by any stretch, though i know we will not agree on that at all....
What i was saying is that in this 2 party system, President Obama will be the lesser of 2 evils because the republican party of today has gone TOOOOOOOO far to the right....NOW, if you had a genuine, reasonable MODERATE republican running i might truly consider voting for him or her...Honestly Gambler, I would probably vote for Michael Bloomberg, but he would never, ever get thru a primary...
-- Modified on 12/8/2010 9:07:14 AM
You are going to vote for Obama no matter what, he doesn't need to pander to you. He needs to reach out to the independents and moderates, of which you are neither, and he seems to be doing exactly that.
I won't disagree with you about the GOP, while I agree with much of what the TEA party stands for, it is also undeniable that they are closely aligned with the "socially right wing" religious right, which I will agree is tooooooo far to the right for me.
I don't expect any moderated Republican to win the GOP nomination, but "if" Obaman continues to shift towards center, and "if" the Pelosi crowd loses their majority in Congress, I could very well see myself voting for Obama in 2012.
I bet you never thought you would hear words like that from me, did you??? lmao
"I could very well see myself voting for Obama in 2012". from GaGambler...
Holy shit, i had to read your 3rd. paragraph twice...
If President Obama can get the GaGambler vote, then he might just be a 2 term president after all....I would have thought you would root for the Eagles or Cowboys over the Falcons before you would consider voting for Obama....
I'll admit, i am floored about the POSSIBLITY of you voting for Obama in 2012....
The chances of me and Trannyboy or benlanger becoming BFF's are so long as to not even be calcuable. lol
That said, I vote for whoever I feel will be best for the country regardless of party, or lacking anyone to vote for, I vote for who I believe will cause the least damage. lol
I find it extremely likely that the GOP will end up with control or at the very least partial control of Congress in 2012. I have never been a fan of EITHER party having total control as things (bad things, such as supposed HCR) actually get done when one party is in control. Gridlock is actually the best one can hope for most of the time.
I believe that if Obama moves a little further towards center, something he already seems to be doing, he will be a much more palatable POTUS than a far right wing Huckabee or Palin type, especially if the GOP ends up with control of Congress.
Clinton was able to make the transition from idealogue to pragmatic politician, lets see if Obama can do the same. If not, I predict he will end up more like LBJ or Carter than the very successful Bill Clinton.
And actually I do find myself rooting for the new Michael Vick led Eagles, my opinion of Vick as a quarterback has changed even more than my opinion of Obama. Vick has definitely turned the corner as a QB, I still have serious reservations where it comes to Obama.
I don't believe that the Falcons, despite having the best record in the NFC are going to make it to the SuperBowl. I believe the Eagles among other are more than capable of beating the Falcons right now.
See, I am full of surprises today. Unlike Priapus who only claims to be "P&R's most objective poster", but comes down on the left side of "every" issue. I truly am independent. It's obvious I am sure that I more than lean conservative where it comes to fiscal issues, but I recognize the need for balance and if that mean Obama in the White House for six more years, than so be it.
As far as the NFL, RIGHT NOW, the best team seems to be the Patriots (after that dismantling of the Jets), but a few weeks ago the Giants appeared to be the best...It's hard to bet against Brady and N.E., especially if they get home field throughout...
On politics, i'm very socially liberal, thus that's why the right turns me off so much, as most republicans today are of the bible thumping crowd...That's why I'm such of fan of Bloomberg as he's not part of that block at all....
and that makes it hard to bet against them.
I'll agree, the bible thumping, religious right turns me off as well, but leaving the dems actually in charge of anything scares me even more. These last two years are proof of that. lol
Either way his politic and policies when President would not have been any different. Well he might of had a better understanding of what constitutes sex in the real world.
Obama would have a better chance winning on the Republican ticket than the Democratic ticket.
I don't know where you live or what watering hole you frequent, but I don't know of one Republican that would vote for him. And that goes for most independents as well.
-- Modified on 12/8/2010 3:56:08 PM