347 posts
Which do you prefer? No tax cuts (no extension for anyone), or tax cuts (extensions) for everyone? That's the choice Obama had.
You can keep saying how Obama bowed to pressure, but what you seem to have forgotten is that Obama cannot pass anything by himself. A tax cut, tax cut extension, or anything related to taxes requires both a majority in the House to vote for it, and 60 senators in the Senate to ensure a filibuster-proof majority.
What the Republicans said, in their letter before the lame-duck session, was that they would refuse to allow ANY legislation to come to a vote until tax cuts were passed for everyone. What was Obama's choice? Sit back and let nothing get accomplished for the next two years? Sure, it's better for his re-election chances to keep legislation moving. But it's also better for the country. As a result of his compromise, he overturned don't ask don't tell and got the new START treaty passed. Not a bad tradeoff.
I don't like tax cuts for the rich either. But I don't see him having a choice. And what I really dislike is the environment that has allowed the pubs to hold the government hostage. That's not fair play, it's extortion. But Americans voted for that extortion en masse.
Hookbender — Jan 10, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#45 date=1294634893]What would you have wanted an "abnormal" politician to do? heh heh
What Obama said he would do. That would be abnormal. heh heh
What did he say he would do and how would he accomplish it?
The point of the post is that if the President makes poor decisions, or any other politician for that matter, they should be voted out, period. Tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, are good at times and bad at times. Any cuts, CUTS, for the rich, AT ANY TIME, are not good. They don't need tax cuts. Right now, we need tax revenue from the rich to help off-set the cuts for mainstream. There is no need to keep the bush tax rate for the rich in effect at all.
Without going into a big long post, your accusations are false. They simply show your lack of understanding of my overall view of politics. Picking little parts of post here and there is in no way any evidence of me arguing for and against anything. I only want CHANGE of leadership as punishment for lack of execution from leadership. It doesn't mean I love the opposite party.
BINGEWOOD — Jan 10, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/25#48 date=1294667516][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#45 date=1294634893]What would you have wanted an "abnormal" politician to do? heh heh
What Obama said he would do. That would be abnormal. heh heh
What did he say he would do and how would he accomplish it?
Google is your friend.
But you brought it up. What would you do to get what you want through. It was the "liberal" view you had on this topic...it didn't make it through the appropriate channels as set up by the founding fathers. What is your plan? How would you execute this plan?
Do you place any of this "blame" on conservatives?
I place the blame on politicians. Obama ran on the hope and change platform and it didn't happen. If he can fight for a year for healthcare for the people of this country, he can fight for a year for the economy improving for this country. And the economy isn't gonna improve by giving tax cuts to the rich who don't need them. It's a complete waste of money by our government. We don't have money to waste. I would never under any circumstance give in to tax cuts for the rich, especially at this time and in fact, not ever period. That doesn't take planning, it takes guts and the will to do the right thing for the country.
You would fight...but how would that get what you want to become a reality?
Hookbender — Jan 11, 2011The point of the post is that if the President makes poor decisions, or any other politician for that matter, they should be voted out, period. Tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, are good at times and bad at times. Any cuts, CUTS, for the rich, AT ANY TIME, are not good. They don't need tax cuts. Right now, we need tax revenue from the rich to help off-set the cuts for mainstream. There is no need to keep the bush tax rate for the rich in effect at all.
Without going into a big long post, your accusations are false. They simply show your lack of understanding of my overall view of politics. Picking little parts of post here and there is in no way any evidence of me arguing for and against anything. I only want CHANGE of leadership as punishment for lack of execution from leadership. It doesn't mean I love the opposite party.
that is exactly the point, you want a change of leadership ?
You got that in November, republicans insisted on tax cuts for the rich.
You are then even more pissed off at Obama!?
What you gonna do ? punish him in 2years, by voting in a republican.
Absolutely. Obama didn't have to give in to tax cuts for the rich because of threats from the pubs. We voted for him to make a stand against shit like that. He failed. What we're really taking about here is adding to the debt, even more with tax cuts for the rich. Billions of dollars spent attempting to fix the economy his way only to see that the extention of tax cuts, which should have been done first, needed to be done as a after thought. Waiting to see what would happen with taxes only slowed down business progress.
Again, you've provided no evidence of me arguing for and against anything. Just a waste of time posting for nothing.
Hookbender — Jan 11, 2011QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK
The truth hurts doesn't it Bingy? :D
truth - you don't like Obama giving into republican policy, so you will vote for - republicans.
mad as a hatter
The vast majority of people voted for Republicans. Republicans ran on a platform of tax cut extensions for everyone. Therefore, whether you would have caved or not, this legislation was the will of the people.
You don't want the president legilating against the will of the people (healthcare) or for the will of the people (tax cuts).
Your political sphere is a very lonely one.
By the way, did any Obama policy have an effect on the recovery? Or was his entire recovery plan a failure, and the resulting economic recovery just something that happened at random?
fingers — Jan 11, 2011truth - you don't like Obama giving into republican policy, so you will vote for - republicans.
mad as a hatter
You question me on that only because you've forgotton my post in earlier threads saying that isn't quite the way I think.
Has nothing to do with republicans or democrats at all. It has to do with accountability. It has to do with holding the President or any politician, (left out normal this time Bingy) responsible for their actions. It has to do with doing the right thing for this country concerning taxes and the rich.
charger — Jan 11, 2011The vast majority of people voted for Republicans. Republicans ran on a platform of tax cut extensions for everyone. Therefore, whether you would have caved or not, this legislation was the will of the people.
You don't want the president legilating against the will of the people (healthcare) or for the will of the people (tax cuts).
Your political sphere is a very lonely one.
By the way, did any Obama policy have an effect on the recovery? Or was his entire recovery plan a failure, and the resulting economic recovery just something that happened at random?
Thats cute Charger.
Hookbender — Jan 13, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/50#62 date=1294785711]truth - you don't like Obama giving into republican policy, so you will vote for - republicans.
mad as a hatter
You question me on that only because you've forgotton my post in earlier threads saying that isn't quite the way I think.
Has nothing to do with republicans or democrats at all. It has to do with accountability. It has to do with holding the President or any politician, (left out normal this time Bingy) responsible for their actions. It has to do with doing the right thing for this country concerning taxes and the rich.
Who voted against what you wanted and for what you didn't?
Republicans got their way on taxes, and so did you. If you voted for Republicans, you got your way. If you didn't vote, that's a vote for whoever wins, by proxy. Your only argument is if you voted for Democrats. You didn't.
California, by the way, did. If anyone's got a right to be mad it's us. But I'm past mad now, and into the stage where I take small victories (don't as don't tell, START, financial legislation, the fact that Republicans will actually participate instead of blocking legislation, etc) and large victories (healthcare, end of combat in Iraq) and weigh them against the losses (tax cuts for the rich) and call it what it is... a win. The Obama administration presided over the most active and successful legislative session in at least 50 years. You complain because you didn't actually read Obama's platform before you voted for him.
Sorry.
Hookbender — Jan 13, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/50#62 date=1294785711]truth - you don't like Obama giving into republican policy, so you will vote for - republicans.
mad as a hatter
You question me on that only because you've forgotton my post in earlier threads saying that isn't quite the way I think.
Has nothing to do with republicans or democrats at all. It has to do with accountability. It has to do with holding the President or any politician, (left out normal this time Bingy) responsible for their actions. It has to do with doing the right thing for this country concerning taxes and the rich.
Bollocks
I question you on your logic as it is absurd.
If you truly believe in your rhetoric of accountability you would be actively seeking to vote out the republicans who made it their priority to make tax cuts for the rich
non-negotiable.
Not voting them into power.
You could never be arguing for voting in a democrat president based on the logic that a republican president gave into a (in your view) dispicable democrat policy.
So go back to your roots - it is palpable and obvious.
Your not questioning my logic, your simply refusing to understand what I said. My overall view of politics isn't in the set of norms, so you assume their wrong views. I doubt you even have read half my post, judging by your comments.
One would have to remember also, as I've said many times, that I know much more now than I did in the Bush era, about politics. Which still is way to little by my own admission. I guess you can hold me to my past views and question my changing view as I learn more about politics, but that wouldn't be logical itself, at all, would it?
Like I said, you seem to know little I've said in the past.
charger — Jan 13, 2011Republicans got their way on taxes, and so did you. If you voted for Republicans, you got your way. If you didn't vote, that's a vote for whoever wins, by proxy. Your only argument is if you voted for Democrats. You didn't.
California, by the way, did. If anyone's got a right to be mad it's us. But I'm past mad now, and into the stage where I take small victories (don't as don't tell, START, financial legislation, the fact that Republicans will actually participate instead of blocking legislation, etc) and large victories (healthcare, end of combat in Iraq) and weigh them against the losses (tax cuts for the rich) and call it what it is... a win. The Obama administration presided over the most active and successful legislative session in at least 50 years. You complain because you didn't actually read Obama's platform before you voted for him.
Sorry.
No, no I didn't. I would do exactly as Obama wanted to do at first, extend the tax cuts to all but the rich. I wouldn't waiver on that because it's the right thing to do for the country. I voted for Obama, is he not a Democrat? :o
It doesn't matter how active you are if what your doing isn't approved of by the voters, who elected you. And can vote against you in 4 years, or the next election.
Hookbender — Jan 14, 2011I would do exactly as Obama wanted to do at first, extend the tax cuts to all but the rich. I wouldn't waiver on that because it's the right thing to do for the country.
How would you do this?
I would have put it out in public every chance I got. First.
So the public would make the pubs back down?
The public voted for them big tyme. Do you think the public wouldn't have voted for them over upper class tax cuts? It was their only issue...well that and repeal/impeach. Their DUCKSPEAK was "This is now tax law, these aren't cuts" "It's stability business is looking for, in the form of extending the Bush tax cuts permanently" "over 250k are the small businesses" "you don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession"
What would you do next to get the legislative votes needed?
Did you check out Bernee Sanders on CSPAN?
Politicians bargain with our country's best interest everyday. I choose not to ignore that behaviour. Doesn't mean you have to. I look at two people running for President as two people running for President. You may see the two people as a democrat and republican, i don't. Helps me hear what they actually have to say. Dig it?
But how would you get the votes?
So in 2012, you'll vote Romney or Palin, because at least they're honest about tax cuts--they want the rich to have them, and have no desire to roll them back?
Hookbender — Jan 14, 2011Your not questioning my logic, your simply refusing to understand what I said. My overall view of politics isn't in the set of norms, so you assume their wrong views. I doubt you even have read half my post, judging by your comments.
One would have to remember also, as I've said many times, that I know much more now than I did in the Bush era, about politics. Which still is way to little by my own admission. I guess you can hold me to my past views and question my changing view as I learn more about politics, but that wouldn't be logical itself, at all, would it?
Like I said, you seem to know little I've said in the past.
Dream on - this is about what you have said recently
i.e. You are going to punish Obama for signing off on tax cuts to the rich.
That is only a logical position if you intend to vote for someone who actively opposes and seeks to overturn that policy.
But you aren't, you are intent on voting for someone who actively advocates the policy you claim to oppose.
Explain the logic of that position as it can't be about tax cuts it has to be about something else.
fingers — Jan 15, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/50#69 date=1294966546]Your not questioning my logic, your simply refusing to understand what I said. My overall view of politics isn't in the set of norms, so you assume their wrong views. I doubt you even have read half my post, judging by your comments.
One would have to remember also, as I've said many times, that I know much more now than I did in the Bush era, about politics. Which still is way to little by my own admission. I guess you can hold me to my past views and question my changing view as I learn more about politics, but that wouldn't be logical itself, at all, would it?
Like I said, you seem to know little I've said in the past.
Dream on - this is about what you have said recently
i.e. You are going to punish Obama for signing off on tax cuts to the rich.
That is only a logical position if you intend to vote for someone who actively opposes and seeks to overturn that policy.
But you aren't, you are intent on voting for someone who actively advocates the policy you claim to oppose.
Explain the logic of that position as it can't be about tax cuts it has to be about something else.
Then you haven't read my recent post either.
Something else like the debt, maybe?
I'm not sure that extending tax cuts for the rich for 2 years is considered policy. It's more like, simply stupid.
I don't know whos running against Obama and I'm not in to speculating, or guessing who that will be. To have a 3 page debate with anyone based on guessing who will run as President in 2 years is pointless.
Maybe we will have a lagit 3rd party candidate. I wouldn't rule that out either. we'll see.
charger — Jan 14, 2011So in 2012, you'll vote Romney or Palin, because at least they're honest about tax cuts--they want the rich to have them, and have no desire to roll them back?
I won't be voting for Palin under any circumstance. My first obligation, if you'd like to call it that, is to vote with the countries best interest in mind. It would pain me big time to vote for Obama, but I would over Palin, no question.
Do you think our country would, after electing our first black President, back that up with electing the first women President?
Ah ok - you are voting out obama over debt
at least the alternative is running on a platform of reducing debt.
I'm not sure that extending tax cuts for the rich for 2 years is considered policy. It's more like, simply stupid.
Well you're the one who is gonna be voting for extending it - as Obama will be running against it.
Do you think our country would, after electing our first black President, back that up with electing the first women President?
The historically significant thing about Palin would not be the fact she is a woman, it would be that the US voted in a far right media creation.
A Rush and Beck cabinet, lots of angry vengeful policy.
Never wrong, never apologise let alone take any advice.
radio jock government - place targets over the heads of political enemies, or hints darkly about invoking 2nd amendment rights to silence them.
claim that nothing they say has any effect on violent madmen.
while launching tirades blaming Maralyn Manson records for the same "non effect".
fingers — Jan 15, 2011Ah ok - you are voting out obama over debt
at least the alternative is running on a platform of reducing debt.
I'm not sure that extending tax cuts for the rich for 2 years is considered policy. It's more like, simply stupid.
Well you're the one who is gonna be voting for extending it - as Obama will be running against it.
He just extended it. And you think he'll do a double take and now want to stop it again? Obama will do whatever he's told to do, apparently. Against it, then extends it, then back to against it again? Whatever.
Are you really as dense as your posts imply
or are you just ignorant of how bills are passed.
educate yourself fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insurance_Reauthorization,_and_Job_Creation_Act_of_2010#Legislative_history
Obama was never for it - he was forced to make a deal by the new republican majority in congress as part of a wider bill and to avoid gridlock threatened by the republicans
It's a temporary extension and expires shortly after the next election.
So it will be an issue in the next election.
Is that the kind of leader you want ? One that isn't for it but gets on tv and says it's what this country needs? Who's the fool Fingers? Is holding politicians accountable that scary to you?
You'd be way better off reading and trying to understand my stance on politics then playing the great educator. Your name calling and accusations that are pointless and have 0 merit are making you look foolish. This is childs play man.
You got anything to say at all?
And maybe you need to read this my brother. Read about the seriousness of the debt I preach about. Then tell me how conservative I am. I'm just a closet republican right.
This is serious. Keeping tax rates the same for rich fuckers is too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110115/ap_on_re_us/us_debt_wars
"With a $1.7 trillion deficit in budget year 2010 alone, and the government on track to spend $1.3 trillion more this year than it takes in, annual budget deficits are adding roughly $4 billion a day to the national debt. Put another way, the government is borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends."
"Here's what then-Sen. Barack Obama said on the Senate floor in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance the government's reckless fiscal policies."
But lets cut taxes for the rich. Lets spend money and set new records. Lets just be fucking stupid, far worse than merely ignorant. Do you need any more evidence of the seriousness of the debt problem? Is that logical enough for you? Sure, Bush did a huge part in this. Damn right. But Obama is following in his foot steps. I've said this all along and listened to all the rage because I was calling Obama on his stupidity. This is why. Read it. Think about it. Oh hell, lets spend more on roads and shit. Lets better our run ways for airports. Lets fix some pot holes. What else can we spend money on? Hey, lets build a new whitehouse. Shit, lets change the color. Lets add new lights. But first, lets see what other countries need money. We'll give um a bunch of damn money. That will help our cause. :-?
So dumbo hookbender will punish those who demanded
tax cuts for the rich, by voting for them.
Hold Boehner to account for making tax cuts for the rich
hos priority -yes hookbender will vote for him.
Palin - who's problem with bill is the tax cuts aren't permanent for the rich,
hookbender will punish that by voting for her.
:-X
vote republican, just don't pretend you are punishing anyone over tax cuts for the rich.
No point arguing this obvious point again
You have no point to argue, so far. Your responses are full of speculation into the future. Are you God or something? Guessing what I will do and guessing who might run for President isn't much of a argument. Your trying to push a false argument based on guesses. That embodies 0 logic. ;D You sound like a republican. Are you a hidden fundy? Are you gonna argue I should believe in God next and call that logical?
BINGEWOOD — Jan 14, 2011But how would you get the votes?
We are on year 2 under Obama and he's said little about the debt. But, he has talked a lot about spending money and cutting taxes.(spending more money)
We are around 14 trillion in debt right now.
It will be much worse if we wait 2 more years to address the debt and out of control spending.
It doesn't take much brilliance to recognize how much trouble we're in right now. It would be easy to explain this to people and the media to put pressure on those willing to fuck us in the ass for 2 more years.
Other than that, I don't know. Apparently Obama and crew don't know either. Thats the problem.
Hookbender — Feb 08, 1974It would be easy to explain this to people and the media to put pressure on those willing to fuck us in the ass for 2 more years.
Other than that, I don't know. Apparently Obama and crew don't know either. Thats the problem.
This stuff was repeated to the people through the media ad nauseum. The pubz wouldn't stop short of their one goal even though it went against their BS regarding lowering the debt. The only thing which would have perhaps changed their minds woulda been a loss in the last elections.
People know the debt is a problem. Poll them, and they say "this is a big problem."
Then, ask them what they are willing to cut, or if they think their taxes should go up, or if they think rich people's taxes should go up. The answers are: nothing, no, and no.
Our only hope to raise taxes and cut spending is a 2nd term president. That's just how the system works. If we elect a new president in 2012, we are just putting it off again until 2016. Because, YES, Hookbender, people who get elected president want to get elected president again.
We had the option under Bush and it did not happen--then again, he never expressed any interest in raising taxes or cutting programs.
Hookbender — Jan 17, 2011We are on year 2 under Obama and he's said little about the debt. But, he has talked a lot about spending money and cutting taxes.(spending more money)
We are around 14 trillion in debt right now.
It will be much worse if we wait 2 more years to address the debt and out of control spending.
It doesn't take much brilliance to recognize how much trouble we're in right now. It would be easy to explain this to people and the media to put pressure on those willing to fuck us in the ass for 2 more years.
Other than that, I don't know. Apparently Obama and crew don't know either. Thats the problem.
You were on 5 trillion debt in 2000.
Just goes to show what electing to wage two wars and ill conceived tax cuts, a catastrophic "near death" financial crisis and the subsequent bail out and crippling recession does to the finances.
You know -
Once a car at uber high speed leaves the road and is heading into a brickwall
you will do anything you can to deal with the fatal crash into the wall - give everything, you aint worried about what might follow - just don't hit that wall.
After surviving that, you jetison the idiot driving and install a new one, the car is still out of control, not running well and bouncing over all kinds of obstacles, but a better driver.
Finally the driver slows it down and gets it back on the road.
But man the damage is immense.
The driver then steps out of that.
And you say - what the fuck did you do to my car :D
Get a GWB back in to drive it.
::) WTF is wrong with you? ;D ;D ;D
fingers — Jan 17, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/75#88 date=1295237281]We are on year 2 under Obama and he's said little about the debt. But, he has talked a lot about spending money and cutting taxes.(spending more money)
We are around 14 trillion in debt right now.
It will be much worse if we wait 2 more years to address the debt and out of control spending.
It doesn't take much brilliance to recognize how much trouble we're in right now. It would be easy to explain this to people and the media to put pressure on those willing to fuck us in the ass for 2 more years.
Other than that, I don't know. Apparently Obama and crew don't know either. Thats the problem.
You were on 5 trillion debt in 2000.
Just goes to show what electing to wage two wars and ill conceived tax cuts, a catastrophic "near death" financial crisis and the subsequent bail out and crippling recession does to the finances.
OK. But we know that. That isn't the subject. The subject now is focusing on what steps to take to fix the problems. You can blame people all you want. Doesn't fix anything. Doesn't help anything. The focus should be on the future, not the past.
charger — Jan 17, 2011People know the debt is a problem. Poll them, and they say "this is a big problem."
Then, ask them what they are willing to cut, or if they think their taxes should go up, or if they think rich people's taxes should go up. The answers are: nothing, no, and no.
Our only hope to raise taxes and cut spending is a 2nd term president. That's just how the system works. If we elect a new president in 2012, we are just putting it off again until 2016. Because, YES, Hookbender, people who get elected president want to get elected president again.
We had the option under Bush and it did not happen--then again, he never expressed any interest in raising taxes or cutting programs.
What 2nd term President? Obama wants taxes to stay the same and raise them on rich folk. And cutting spending is something I think is impossible for Obama. He's done nothing but spend since he came in to office, no matter what the reasons are.
Hookbender — Jan 18, 2011 ::) WTF is wrong with you? ;D ;D ;D
Time to ask yourself that question, Hook.
I found that his analogy made perfect sense.
Tripper
;D ;D Sure you did. ;D ;D
Hookbender — Jan 18, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/75#91 date=1295303469][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/75#88 date=1295237281]We are on year 2 under Obama and he's said little about the debt. But, he has talked a lot about spending money and cutting taxes.(spending more money)
We are around 14 trillion in debt right now.
It will be much worse if we wait 2 more years to address the debt and out of control spending.
It doesn't take much brilliance to recognize how much trouble we're in right now. It would be easy to explain this to people and the media to put pressure on those willing to fuck us in the ass for 2 more years.
Other than that, I don't know. Apparently Obama and crew don't know either. Thats the problem.
You were on 5 trillion debt in 2000.
Just goes to show what electing to wage two wars and ill conceived tax cuts, a catastrophic "near death" financial crisis and the subsequent bail out and crippling recession does to the finances.
OK. But we know that. That isn't the subject. The subject now is focusing on what steps to take to fix the problems. You can blame people all you want. Doesn't fix anything. Doesn't help anything. The focus should be on the future, not the past.
So no point you constantly bitching and whining about Obama then is there,
it's in the past.
Hookbender — Jan 18, 2011 ::) WTF is wrong with you? ;D ;D ;D
Sorry about that, I keep forgetting to pitch things at a level you can follow and understand.
I was going to say comprehend there ;D
How's your studying going?
Did you get round to watching the i'm just a bill educational cartoon
binge posted?