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.
What people fail to understand is that many government programs (green subsidies,etc) increase the wealth of rich people at the expense of the working class.
The #1 job of all politicians is fund raising for himself and his party. He who fails to demonstrate the ability to excel at this, has no chance.
Each party nominates the candidate that has proven most successful in raising money for himself and his party.
The Citizens United ruling now allow politicians to court foreign money from anonymous donors.
Obama had two years with a complete dem congress. He had plenty of time to push his silly agenda.
A simple majority doesn't mean squat anymore. You have to have a 60 seat supermajority to have complete control of congress. Between Byrd and Kennedy's illnesses and deaths and the recount vote in Minnesota the Democrats only had filibuster proof supermajority for a month. And good luck overhauling the tax code and implementing a sweeping agenda in that amount of time, not that they were inclined to do that anyway.
Obama had two years with a complete dem congress. He had plenty of time to push his silly agenda.
No he didn't, that's a dumb conservative myth. Republican senatorial stonewalling requires 60 votes to surpass, and there were never 60 Dems. There was a brief window where they had 60 Dems + Independents, but even that assumes you include Lieberman (who only votes with Dems on a few issues). Even then, the window was narrowed due to Frankin's election recount and Kennedy's poor health. So they had a total of 24 days in the Senate where they could pass legislation over Republican filibustering, if they could get the support of Lieberman, who was opposed to many key Democratic proposals (e.g., single-payer health care).
Anyway, that argument is dumb on the face of it, because where are all these sweeping proposals Obama was supposed to have enacted? And if he didn't implement progressive proposals (whether by choice or not), how is the resulting economic failure supposed to be a victory for conservative ideas?
A simple majority doesn't mean squat anymore. You have to have a 60 seat supermajority to have complete control of congress. Between Byrd and Kennedy's illnesses and deaths and the recount vote and the recount vote in Minnesota the Democrats only had filibuster proof supermajority for a few months.
But hey, facts and stuff.
Did they have a super majority though? Yep. They did. If they were so gung ho hell bent to advance the progressive agenda, they would have. Look at the trickery and machination employed to pass Obamacare. Had they wanted to try and create this perfectly equal utopia you knuckleheads think is even possible, they would have. But they didn't, as they are just as beholden to their corporate masters as the GOP.
That's the point. When either party makes a law or does anything regarding the economy in any way at all, no matter what the rhetoric is, it benefits some deep pocketed crony somewhere. That's it, that's all.
So enough with this this "well if they would have had a super majority, and if and if and if...." Your beloved Democrats are just as corrupt, in the tank for monied interests, and sleazy as their GOP buddies. Get over the partisan ignorance.
So enough with this this "well if they would have had a super majority, and if and if and if...." Your beloved Democrats are just as corrupt, in the tank for monied interests, and sleazy as their GOP buddies. Get over the partisan ignorance.
This whole argument is silly. "Democrats are just as bad as the GOP and liberals are dumb partisans for voting Democrat!" *votes straight tea party ticket*
Look beyond the curtain-Obama has nothing to do with the economy-The Federal Reserve has been implementing monetary policies since 2009 that are unprecedented and it has only served to inflate stocks and monopolize wealth into a tiny segment of the population-many of whom are not even American.
95% of all income created since 2009 (TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS in unprecedented "quantitative easing") has gone to 1% of the population while 90% have become poorer in this country.
Think The Fed is working for you?
The Federal Reserve is treasonous and is not aligned with the ideals of the United States-they serve only to grow and monopolize wealth into the hands of a relatively miniscule group of global players, banks and corporations-none of which have any type of allegience to The USA.
This is just not so. The Fed policies have affected more than the 1%. While stock ownership is at an all time low, 52% of Americans still own stocks - either as direct investors or members of retirement funds, college savings and so on. The owners of savings and retirement funds have benefited enormously from the Fed policies with their wealth returned to pre-recession values and even increased in most cases. The Fed policies have also benefited middle class homeowners. Low mortgage rates led to renewed home buying and home values going back up. Middle class people also benefit from low interest rates on consumer credit and auto loans. The Fed policy was stimulative and while the 1% received a disproportionate share, it lifted nearly everyone's bottom line.
If we want to see wage rise in this country, it is pretty easy to do. Raise the minimum wage to 10.10 as Obama has proposed. It is a fact that minimum wage increases help the middle class more than the people they apply to. Get with it. It is the Republican congress that opposes it.
This is just not so. The Fed policies have affected more than the 1%. While stock ownership is at an all time low, 52% of Americans still own stocks - either as direct investors or members of retirement funds, college savings and so on. The owners of savings and retirement funds have benefited enormously from the Fed policies with their wealth returned to pre-recession values and even increased in most cases. The Fed policies have also benefited middle class homeowners. Low mortgage rates led to renewed home buying and home values going back up. Middle class people also benefit from low interest rates on consumer credit and auto loans. The Fed policy was stimulative and while the 1% received a disproportionate share, it lifted nearly everyone's bottom line.
If we want to see wage rise in this country, it is pretty easy to do. Raise the minimum wage to 10.10 as Obama has proposed. It is a fact that minimum wage increases help the middle class more than the people they apply to. Get with it. It is the Republican congress that opposes it.
Sorry but the facts are the facts. Again, 90% of Americans have become poorer during the same time that The Federal Reserve has created TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS in made up money-95% of which has gone to 1% of the population. The stock market is also a bubble that could potentially devastate the middle class within this year or next.
Do you really think this is sustainable or are you one of the last remaining souls that clings to "trickle down" nonsense.
No he didn't, that's a dumb conservative myth. Republican senatorial stonewalling requires 60 votes to surpass, and there were never 60 Dems. There was a brief window where they had 60 Dems + Independents, but even that assumes you include Lieberman (who only votes with Dems on a few issues). Even then, the window was narrowed due to Frankin's election recount and Kennedy's poor health. So they had a total of 24 days in the Senate where they could pass legislation over Republican filibustering, if they could get the support of Lieberman, who was opposed to many key Democratic proposals (e.g., single-payer health care).
Anyway, that argument is dumb on the face of it, because where are all these sweeping proposals Obama was supposed to have enacted? And if he didn't implement progressive proposals (whether by choice or not), how is the resulting economic failure supposed to be a victory for conservative ideas?
They got Obamacare passed with not a single Republican vote from either the House or Senate.
That said..they could have passed more if they really wanted to.
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.
