Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the same person who was adamantly AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2008, straight out of John Kerry's 'I was for it before i was against it' playbook.
Out of control entitlements compounding the national debt, makes us a subject to our own debt and not capable of dealing with catastrophies when they take place. The one controlling the debt is who we end up being subject to when it cant be paid back.
Trust me, I've been there, sitting in a room with creditors, its not a pretty sight and makes you as low as humanly possible.
Ok, entitlements cost a lot of money, but.....
"According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs)."
The people don't support ending them, cutting them, or letting them phase out. They want the same benefits for their kids, grandkids, and great grandkids.
So we have to focus on where we can cut, remember the people rule. Even if a Republican congress and President were elected, if they touched social security the changes would be repealed in two years when a MASSIVE wave of voter backlash would flood congress with Democrats.
A president has every right to chide politicians who bicker like children and throw a fit to get their own way.
If we can recall, even Boehner wanted his "own" party to "get your ass in line". He must be a bully too He apparently used his verbal power to get squabbling fringe factions in line.
It is Boehner's job, just as it is Pelosi's and Reid's job, to get their members on board. It's no different than your supervisor at work telling you to get your ass in gear when a group project is on the line.
THe President is in an elected position, just as members of Congress are in elected positions. The President did not hire anyone who serves in either House. They were all sent there to do the "people's business." All of them, Congress and the President, were sent with a MANDATE. That mandate includes working together to create legislation. THe President is no more powerful than Congress, as a collective, as any of them serve at the voter's pleasure.
For the President to bully or threaten a member of Congress is way out of line, and is guaranteed to meet with resistance, especially when the person getting bullied is there on a mission of COMPROMISE.
"According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs)."
The people don't support ending them, cutting them, or letting them phase out. They want the same benefits for their kids, grandkids, and great grandkids.
So we have to focus on where we can cut, remember the people rule. Even if a Republican congress and President were elected, if they touched social security the changes would be repealed in two years when a MASSIVE wave of voter backlash would flood congress with Democrats.
First of all, SS, Medicare and Medicaid are not the only entitlements!!!!
"According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs)."
how can that be? We all know the tea partiers are so hateful, now you are criticizing them for not wanting people to starve in the street. Is there no pleasing people like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The people don't support ending them, cutting them, or letting them phase out. They want the same benefits for their kids, grandkids, and great grandkids.
Well luckily for us, we dont live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic, where we elect representation to do whats best, not whats more popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
So we have to focus on where we can cut, remember the people rule. Even if a Republican congress and President were elected, if they touched social security the changes would be repealed in two years when a MASSIVE wave of voter backlash would flood congress with Democrats.
The same thing was predicted in the 1990's, which resulted in Bush, and a GOP led Congress. When cuts result in fiscal restraint, people comprehend. People want jobs, not welfare, and when policies support jobs, people support those plans, not object to them.
They've been touching Social Security for decades, there has been no massive backlash you say would take place.
Well when you can show us which foreign country is attempting to make us it's subjects, then maybe your argument will have some relevance.
I would say that to many citizens it certainly feels like our current president is attempting to take the US out of POTUS and replace it with something unrecognizable and make us its subjects.
Yes. There are still some "Loyalists," who hang on and take orders, but there are more and more American Citizens who are standing up for the U.S. and make my comment relevant.
Well he can commence his "world apology tour" with his upcoming bus trip to tout his new "job's creation" priority! What a maroon!
Two years late, and 15 Trillion short!
Why do we always have to bring COLOR into these political discussions!
If you're going to criticize someone for being less than intelligent, wouldn't it be wise to choose the correct word, rather than referring to a color?
What utter crap. Obama and Boehner almost had a bipartisan deal that would have cut spending and raised revenue and which both could have worked to implement. The Tea Party rejected it, and we got the Frankenstein compromise.
Spoiler
The blame sits squarely on their shoulders. They insisted on pushing a very unpopular minority view forward that noone else could support,and many still think the default would have been fine. Obama, Boehner, McConnell, nor Reid did not want that, but the Tea Party had to have their day in the sun and go for the nuclear option.
Folks around the world now see them for the crazed ideologues that they are, inept stewards of the largest economy on earth. Obama was damaged by this, but he did everything reasonable he could to avoid it.
I am getting less and less impressed with Forbes magazine. It seems very biased. I will read up in the Economist to get a different view.
Had it not been for the ineptitude of so many previous Congresses, the Frankenstein compromise would not have been necessary. Nor the S&P downgrade.
A president has every right to chide politicians who bicker like children and throw a fit to get their own way.
And that's worked so well for him, hasn't it?
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals" doesn't accomplish the same things in the big house as it does when used for community organizing.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals" doesn't accomplish the same things in the big house as it does when used for community organizing.
And that is where Obama's lack of experience particularly shows up. He did not even serve one term in the Senate!
All members of Congress are to be respected as the voice of the people who elected them. There is a reason for the formality in each chamber and for the formality within the White House itself.
Have you ever noticed that folks who have been lifelong friends of Presidents immediately begin referring to that person as Mr. President? It is no longer "my pal George." It is Mr. President.
Same for the Senators and Congressmen. Same for the Supreme Court Justices.
There is a reason for this "surface" civility. Our legislators have been sent to DC to FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, not on PERSONAL GRIEVANCES or even PERSONALITIES. Civility, good manners and respect keep people focused on the job at hand.
To do otherwise is to undermine the respect, and thus - effectiveness - of the OFFICE to which people have been elected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He apparently used his verbal power to get squabbling fringe factions in line.
