If Obama stays pat, he's won the "Fiscal Cliff" battle.

[Stephanie]

And he may get what he wants in terms of the debt ceiling as well.

At this point, there is almost no upside to dealing with Republicans. Actually..there is none.

Once the Fiscal Cliff is done, so are they. They will lose the house in 2014.

Obama gets to sunset the Bush Tax cuts..and get the Defense cuts that were necessary to balance the budget. And he's got a great deal of leverage..since he can soften those.

Well played.

Personally..I didn't see this when the sequester deal was done.

I'm not sure why you think the Dems will win in 2014 after going over the fiscal cliff, causing a recession and everyone's taxes to rise. That's not usually a winning formula.

Because they won't be seen as responsible.

Right now close to 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up.

Obama's at 51% popularity.

And congress is in the low teens.

It's all about winning with you people, not what's best for the people and this country..
and this crap about 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up, was that a poll done on thinkprogress, dailyKos?
I never thought I'd see the day when you people would cheer for others taxes to be raised..
it's small and pathetic in my book

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who we elect to represent us as our number one is very significant as a sign of the times. Look of the impact of JFK being elected and how that energized his times. Or even as far back as when Teddy Roosevelt fell ass backwards into the Presidency in his time. Obama will get a lot more credit in history than he deserves just because of the energy around him and it's effect on society.

Unreal.. So let me get this straight so I understand, you vote for people who may or may not bring results,, but you are satisfied as long as the President "makes you feel good"?

You vote for Reagan?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Lib deflection.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And he may get what he wants in terms of the debt ceiling as well.

At this point, there is almost no upside to dealing with Republicans. Actually..there is none.

Once the Fiscal Cliff is done, so are they. They will lose the house in 2014.

Obama gets to sunset the Bush Tax cuts..and get the Defense cuts that were necessary to balance the budget. And he's got a great deal of leverage..since he can soften those.

Well played.

Personally..I didn't see this when the sequester deal was done.

I'm not sure why you think the Dems will win in 2014 after going over the fiscal cliff, causing a recession and everyone's taxes to rise. That's not usually a winning formula.

Because they won't be seen as responsible.

Right now close to 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up.

Obama's at 51% popularity.

And congress is in the low teens.

And when everyone's taxes go up, and no matter what any deal is made, they will rise, those alleged 80% of those polled( 1,000 people or so at a time) will act with utter surprise saying to themselves "what happened? Obama said we would all live in total happiness!".
This 80% is made up of the uninformed. People that have time to answer polls are probably occupied with too much time on their hands. Which means they are not working. Which means they are possibly part of the entitlement class.
When nearly half the people are riding in the boat while the other have to row the boat, there is dissension and divisiveness.
Obama like all other far left wing pundits herd people into groups then pit those groups against one another.
These polls which you so gleefully rely on for your own comfort, prove this out.
Obama has succeeded at dividing this country so sharply, there is no repair possible until his ideas have been brought out into the light and defeated.
Until then, this country will continue ot be at war with itself. This is your side's cross to bear. YOU brought this scourge upon us.
With Obama in office, there will be no prosperity. In fact, that half of us who produce and work will exist to feed government's insatiable appetite for spending blindly and creating bureaucracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And he may get what he wants in terms of the debt ceiling as well.

At this point, there is almost no upside to dealing with Republicans. Actually..there is none.

Once the Fiscal Cliff is done, so are they. They will lose the house in 2014.

Obama gets to sunset the Bush Tax cuts..and get the Defense cuts that were necessary to balance the budget. And he's got a great deal of leverage..since he can soften those.

Well played.

Personally..I didn't see this when the sequester deal was done.

I'm not sure why you think the Dems will win in 2014 after going over the fiscal cliff, causing a recession and everyone's taxes to rise. That's not usually a winning formula.

Because they won't be seen as responsible.

Right now close to 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up.

Obama's at 51% popularity.

And congress is in the low teens.

The main stream media in the bag for Obama have been protecting him since before he was elected. Obama is the US President to go to the White House without being vetted.
And it is this media which will assist Obama in a falsehood. That falsehood will be that while Obama will be 100% responsible for the scuttling of the US economy and quite possibly, a dramatic weakening of the US in the world community. the media will place the blame elsewhere. And there are just enough takers in this country to believe it.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

I'm not sure why you think the Dems will win in 2014 after going over the fiscal cliff, causing a recession and everyone's taxes to rise. That's not usually a winning formula.

Because they won't be seen as responsible.

Right now close to 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up.

Obama's at 51% popularity.

And congress is in the low teens.

The main stream media in the bag for Obama have been protecting him since before he was elected. Obama is the US President to go to the White House without being vetted.
And it is this media which will assist Obama in a falsehood. That falsehood will be that while Obama will be 100% responsible for the scuttling of the US economy and quite possibly, a dramatic weakening of the US in the world community. the media will place the blame elsewhere. And there are just enough takers in this country to believe it.

why does the right refer to basically any media that is not Faux News or Rush and the "liberal main stream media" or "main stream media?" just because you disagree with the facts on the table doesnt mean they arent facts. you people on the right seem to have a problem with this. just like Karl Rove thinking Ohio was going to Romney even when all the data pointed to the contrary.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because they won't be seen as responsible.

Right now close to 80% of the public thinks taxes should go up.

Obama's at 51% popularity.

And congress is in the low teens.

The main stream media in the bag for Obama have been protecting him since before he was elected. Obama is the US President to go to the White House without being vetted.
And it is this media which will assist Obama in a falsehood. That falsehood will be that while Obama will be 100% responsible for the scuttling of the US economy and quite possibly, a dramatic weakening of the US in the world community. the media will place the blame elsewhere. And there are just enough takers in this country to believe it.

why does the right refer to basically any media that is not Faux News or Rush and the "liberal main stream media" or "main stream media?" just because you disagree with the facts on the table doesnt mean they arent facts. you people on the right seem to have a problem with this. just like Karl Rove thinking Ohio was going to Romney even when all the data pointed to the contrary.

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am aware that Obama has no upside to deal with Republicans. And he may get what he wants, but that doesn't mean we need to give it to him. Especially when it's not good for the nation. If he wants to take the nation over the fiscal cliff here, let him own it.

He won't own it; Republicans will. Just look at polling.

Obama's approval rating has risen 12 points since August 2011. The approval rating of Republicans in Congress sits at 25 percent, hovering around the 22-percent level it fell to in the wake of the debt ceiling crisis.

The Republican Party's favorable-to-unfavorable split is 36-59. The Democratic Party's is 48-47.

Only 46 percent of Republican voters approve of Republican leaders in Congress. By comparison, 71 percent of Democrats approve of their party's leaders in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner's favorable-to-unfavorable split sits at 21-40.

More people think Democrats can "do a better job" handling jobs, the economy, Medicare, health care, Social Security and education.

By a 53-33 margin, more Americans think the GOP is "more extreme in its positions."

By a 69-28 margin, Americans support raising tax rates on incomes above $250,000.

The only significant spending cuts that voters favor are reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits to upper-income Americans.


Read more: Fiscal Cliff Poll Brutal For Republicans - Business Insider

Who the fuck is mentioning approval ratings?
These polls are invalid because they are unscientific.
It is a sad commentary on this nation when it allows government by popularity polls.
Who was asked? What were the questions? In what way were the questions asked?
How were the answers listed? Were there answer which permitted a dissenting view?
Anyway, those who are easily led by polls are fools.
Yeah, half the country is interested in one thing. That would be who is going to make sure the steady flow of government goodies continues.
Now that it's not working out so well, we hear the screaming.
Whether you like it or not your taxes are going up. Of course you cannot object. This is going to used to fund your side's vision of compassion.
Let's go off the cliff. Let Obama own it. Let those who have for the last 50 years contributed NOTHING to the country start pay THEIR fair share.
Get some skin in the game or shut the fuck up.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The main stream media in the bag for Obama have been protecting him since before he was elected. Obama is the US President to go to the White House without being vetted.
And it is this media which will assist Obama in a falsehood. That falsehood will be that while Obama will be 100% responsible for the scuttling of the US economy and quite possibly, a dramatic weakening of the US in the world community. the media will place the blame elsewhere. And there are just enough takers in this country to believe it.

why does the right refer to basically any media that is not Faux News or Rush and the "liberal main stream media" or "main stream media?" just because you disagree with the facts on the table doesnt mean they arent facts. you people on the right seem to have a problem with this. just like Karl Rove thinking Ohio was going to Romney even when all the data pointed to the contrary.

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

in your opinion its a "liberal bias" simply because you disagree with the facts of matter.

i dont view fox news as "biased" i view them as liars since they went to court and won based on the fact that they do not have to tell the truth. so why would i pay attention to a "news" source who has already stated that they are unwilling to tell the truth?

 

[Too Tall]

And he may get what he wants in terms of the debt ceiling as well.

At this point, there is almost no upside to dealing with Republicans. Actually..there is none.

Once the Fiscal Cliff is done, so are they. They will lose the house in 2014.

Obama gets to sunset the Bush Tax cuts..and get the Defense cuts that were necessary to balance the budget. And he's got a great deal of leverage..since he can soften those.

Well played.

Personally..I didn't see this when the sequester deal was done.

I agree with you man. The two main reasons I voted Obama was the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and this country's removal from Afghanistan. When those two things happen I really feel our economy and our society will begin an ascent into prosperity and good things.

Do you realize that the withdrawal from Iraq was set in concrete by George Bush before Obama was elected?

Do you realize that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years and he only wants a very small part of the Bush tax cuts to expire?

 

[Too Tall]

We have to get serious about the National Debt, we need more spending cuts too. I think everyone should scarifice, rich, poor and in-between.

There are smart ways to cut spending and stupid ways.

Obama went with "smart" when he enacted the ACA..which saved about 750 Billion dollars in Medicare spending. Another good one was getting the banks out of student loans.

But of course people are going to grouse about those sorts of spending cuts. Since they are the real pork that enriches to the private sector.

Government student loans are nearing $1 trillion and will be the next bubble to bust.

 

[Too Tall]

I agree with you man. The two main reasons I voted Obama was the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and this country's removal from Afghanistan. When those two things happen I really feel our economy and our society will begin an ascent into prosperity and good things.

How exactly do you think taking more money away from people is going to create more prosperity? When has a government ever taxed us into wealth?

And since Obama has put more resources in Afghanistan, it doesn't seem like you are getting what you want.

The problem with this country today is the devaluing of the dollar which has resulted in a loss of wealth for the entire country regardless of class. The dollar has lost 35% of it value from the year 2000 and this inflation is the reason the middle class has been getting squeezed so hard. With the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and the changes in defense spending, this will be a huge step towards dealing with the national debt which along with over saturation is the chief thing fucking the dollar and the economy right now.

And aren't you a bitter mother.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not even being considered by anyone. All Obama wants is to raise the tax rate on the top tax payers. The gain in revenue will be miniscule and solve nothing.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

How exactly do you think taking more money away from people is going to create more prosperity? When has a government ever taxed us into wealth?

And since Obama has put more resources in Afghanistan, it doesn't seem like you are getting what you want.

The problem with this country today is the devaluing of the dollar which has resulted in a loss of wealth for the entire country regardless of class. The dollar has lost 35% of it value from the year 2000 and this inflation is the reason the middle class has been getting squeezed so hard. With the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and the changes in defense spending, this will be a huge step towards dealing with the national debt which along with over saturation is the chief thing fucking the dollar and the economy right now.

And aren't you a bitter mother.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not even being considered by anyone. All Obama wants is to raise the tax rate on the top tax payers. The gain in revenue will be miniscule and solve nothing.

$700B over 10 years isnt exactly insignificant.

 

[Too Tall]

The problem with this country today is the devaluing of the dollar which has resulted in a loss of wealth for the entire country regardless of class. The dollar has lost 35% of it value from the year 2000 and this inflation is the reason the middle class has been getting squeezed so hard. With the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and the changes in defense spending, this will be a huge step towards dealing with the national debt which along with over saturation is the chief thing fucking the dollar and the economy right now.

And aren't you a bitter mother.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not even being considered by anyone. All Obama wants is to raise the tax rate on the top tax payers. The gain in revenue will be miniscule and solve nothing.

$700B over 10 years isnt exactly insignificant.

To start with, they will never get that amount because the top earners lawyers and accountants will prevail. Even if they do get $70 billion a year, that is chump change to a $1.2 Trillion deficit.

 

[Too Tall]

why does the right refer to basically any media that is not Faux News or Rush and the "liberal main stream media" or "main stream media?" just because you disagree with the facts on the table doesnt mean they arent facts. you people on the right seem to have a problem with this. just like Karl Rove thinking Ohio was going to Romney even when all the data pointed to the contrary.

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

in your opinion its a "liberal bias" simply because you disagree with the facts of matter.

i dont view fox news as "biased" i view them as liars since they went to court and won based on the fact that they do not have to tell the truth. so why would i pay attention to a "news" source who has already stated that they are unwilling to tell the truth?

May I suggest that you do not watch Fox and that you do watch MSNBC. LOL

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

in your opinion its a "liberal bias" simply because you disagree with the facts of matter.

i dont view fox news as "biased" i view them as liars since they went to court and won based on the fact that they do not have to tell the truth. so why would i pay attention to a "news" source who has already stated that they are unwilling to tell the truth?

May I suggest that you do not watch Fox and that you do watch MSNBC. LOL

i dont watch MSNBC either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

why does the right refer to basically any media that is not Faux News or Rush and the "liberal main stream media" or "main stream media?" just because you disagree with the facts on the table doesnt mean they arent facts. you people on the right seem to have a problem with this. just like Karl Rove thinking Ohio was going to Romney even when all the data pointed to the contrary.

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

in your opinion its a "liberal bias" simply because you disagree with the facts of matter.

i dont view fox news as "biased" i view them as liars since they went to court and won based on the fact that they do not have to tell the truth. so why would i pay attention to a "news" source who has already stated that they are unwilling to tell the truth?

As previously stated, it is not the facts of the story that are in question. It is the manner in which those facts are reported. Or more accurately, packaged.
If the news went untouched by ideology of the left, this discussion would be moot.
Anyway, a few links debunking your desperate attempt to protect the MSM from any criticism.
Quick question, why is it that most major publishers and editorial boards endorse democrat candidates? When is the last time the Publisher of USA Today for example, endorsed a non liberal for President?
Media Bias Basics

Oh, now Fox News is made up of liars...
Look genius, the fact that most main stream media "news" is affected by an editorial bias to the left is in no greater evidence than that of the tumbling ad revenues for most daily newspapers
In announcing pay cuts, reductions in health-care plan support and another buyout offer, the Newark Star-Ledger revealed that it now expects its advertising revenue for the year to be 48 percent less than it was in 2006.
A commenter on McClatchy Watch who appears to have some knowledge of what company management is thinking, says there are no more plans for staff cuts at the company. McClatchy realizes it cut too deeply in the last round of layoffs and has to focus on revenue growth instead of more cost reduction to dig out of its hole. Refreshing philosophy, if true.
The founders of Elauwit Media, a community media company based in Haddonfield, N.J. write of the decline of major metro dailies with not a small amount of pride. Their business is growing nicely, thank you, from $100,000 in revenue in 2004 to $2.4 million in 2008. The secret: “Everybody Gets It. Everybody Reads It.” In other words, stop charging subscribers. “Huge regional daily newspapers would do better to stop requiring people to subscribe and instead deliver the paper to everybody in their target demographic…If big newspapers would charge the advertisers, not the readers, they could still turn things around.” Why didn’t we think of that?
The San Francisco Chronicle laid off “more than a dozen top reporters” last week, according to a story on the local CBS website. There are few specifics, but given that the Chronicle is trying to cut its way from $50 million in annual losses to break-even, you can expect more to come.
Daniel Baum, who was fired from the New Yorker in 2007, is taking the very un-New Yorker approach of tweeting the story, as well as details about the inner workings of the literary magazine. We doubt the New Yorker has ever said anything in 140 characters.
Mcclatchy | Newspaper Death Watch

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It is not the facts that are in question. It is the manner in which the main stream media which has been documented countless times as liberal bias, reports the news.
Stories are editorialized and packaged with a view point.
Editorial news boards often decide what is news and what is not.
What is labeled journalism now, is a mere shred of what it once was.
Nearly every story we see as reported by the MSM has editorial commentary or the writer/reporter him/herself has injected opinion into the story.
Because the liberals had owned the media for decades, the advent of Fox News which you view as biased,, is actually balanced. Factually, the network's talk shows feature conservative commentary. Your side confuses this with the Fox News division.
Because of this, and the fact that liberals had no competition in the news and commentary marketplace, your side is incensed.

in your opinion its a "liberal bias" simply because you disagree with the facts of matter.

i dont view fox news as "biased" i view them as liars since they went to court and won based on the fact that they do not have to tell the truth. so why would i pay attention to a "news" source who has already stated that they are unwilling to tell the truth?

As previously stated, it is not the facts of the story that are in question. It is the manner in which those facts are reported. Or more accurately, packaged.
If the news went untouched by ideology of the left, this discussion would be moot.
Anyway, a few links debunking your desperate attempt to protect the MSM from any criticism.
Quick question, why is it that most major publishers and editorial boards endorse democrat candidates? When is the last time the Publisher of USA Today for example, endorsed a non liberal for President?
Media Bias Basics

Oh, now Fox News is made up of liars...
Look genius, the fact that most main stream media "news" is affected by an editorial bias to the left is in no greater evidence than that of the tumbling ad revenues for most daily newspapers
In announcing pay cuts, reductions in health-care plan support and another buyout offer, the Newark Star-Ledger revealed that it now expects its advertising revenue for the year to be 48 percent less than it was in 2006.
A commenter on McClatchy Watch who appears to have some knowledge of what company management is thinking, says there are no more plans for staff cuts at the company. McClatchy realizes it cut too deeply in the last round of layoffs and has to focus on revenue growth instead of more cost reduction to dig out of its hole. Refreshing philosophy, if true.
The founders of Elauwit Media, a community media company based in Haddonfield, N.J. write of the decline of major metro dailies with not a small amount of pride. Their business is growing nicely, thank you, from $100,000 in revenue in 2004 to $2.4 million in 2008. The secret: “Everybody Gets It. Everybody Reads It.” In other words, stop charging subscribers. “Huge regional daily newspapers would do better to stop requiring people to subscribe and instead deliver the paper to everybody in their target demographic…If big newspapers would charge the advertisers, not the readers, they could still turn things around.” Why didn’t we think of that?
The San Francisco Chronicle laid off “more than a dozen top reporters” last week, according to a story on the local CBS website. There are few specifics, but given that the Chronicle is trying to cut its way from $50 million in annual losses to break-even, you can expect more to come.
Daniel Baum, who was fired from the New Yorker in 2007, is taking the very un-New Yorker approach of tweeting the story, as well as details about the inner workings of the literary magazine. We doubt the New Yorker has ever said anything in 140 characters.
Mcclatchy | Newspaper Death Watch

these are you opinions and the opinions of right wing nut jobs simply because you disagree with the facts. sane and intelligent people understand fox news is in fact not actually news but entertainment.