Top Priorities

[Foxfyre]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

Amen! This alone would solve half of the other problems. Get people working and many of our other issues will take care of themselves. When people are working the are paying their bills, their mortgage, buying stuff. Borrowing, lending, it all leads to a healthy economy. Make goods and services that are exportable. The dollar is week, what better opportunity than to increase our exports.

When businesses refuse to hire and people aren't working, they're not spending on the products and services those businesses sell. It's a classic Catch-22 situation (you heard that here first, folks, although I notice a few pundits are now also using the analogy).

But again businesses aren't going to blindly throw good money after bad until they know what the tax structure is going to be for the long haul, what the final shakeout of the healthcare legislation is going to require of them, and what regulation is going to be involved in the process. And the Obama administration has so far been the most business unfriendly administration in my memory. The priorities listed so far by this Admiinistration are not doing anything to change that.

Jobs, however, require fiscal responsibility including reining and reversing spending, putting unspent money back in the bank , rescinding special costly favors to certain constituencies. And jobs require getting the tax structure back to a business friendly status private industry can count on. And jobs require backing off unnecessary regulation that makes it more and more difficult for small business to take risks.

And NONE of that has been stated as a priority of this administration.

So what do we do about that?

 

[Charles_Main]

Why are you concerned about subpoena power? Is there something that might lead ongress to investigate obama for something?

I'm concerned that nothing will get done while political zealots gum up the works just to fight dirty politics rather than enact meaningful legislation. Watch Michelle Bachmann in the coming year. She'll make a non-stop campaign if she's in the majority. Daryl Issa scares me most though.

That's exactly what will happen. Nothing. A great big fat zero. If "new" Republican lawmakers think they have the magic keys to solving the myriad problems right now that have taken decades to create, they'll soon find out what a mucky swamp they will need to navigate. Oh they'll make grand speeches on the respective floors, draft new bills attempting to wipe out everything the Democrats have done over the past four years, and be shocked when they butt heads with the process, which only begins with initial debate on a draft bill (if one even gets as far as the floor at all).

Frankly I would rather have inept Politicians who muck things up, then one who is driving us right off the deep end. we may not have the answers but we damn well know spending 4 times as Fast as the last guy is not it.

 

[MaggieMae]

They have to be showing at least 15% support in national polls.

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?

They'd need to break for commercials. Frankly, I wouldn't sit through three hours of television debates, which is what would happen if every candidate was to be heard.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

I don't buy the corporate sponsor theory either. I think all Presidential candidates are based on ideology. One exception was Ross Perot who had the charisma and intrigue to generate national interest and then literally built a poltiical party from the grass roots to support him. He challenged his supporters to put him on the ballot in all 50 states and then he would agree to run and they did. He had such universal support the GOP and Democrats had to include him in the debates where he did very well.

Had he not wigged out and gone nuts, I think he very well might have been elected but he shot himself in the foot by quitting and then trying to get back in. Evenso Clinton who was elected only got 43% of the vote.

But most of the more obscure candidates are raised up by the more obscure political parties such as the Greens and Libertarians, or they find a small obscure political party to take them on as a candidate.

Since Dick Armey pledges a "hostile" takeover of the GOP by the Tea Party, then I don't understand why some of the libertarians don't start pushing a candidate for the Libertarian Party that would have a viable chance at the nomination. You never hear anything about that party anymore, although I do hear a lot of individuals claim to be "libertarians."

 

[Charles_Main]

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

I don't buy the corporate sponsor theory either. I think all Presidential candidates are based on ideology. One exception was Ross Perot who had the charisma and intrigue to generate national interest and then literally built a poltiical party from the grass roots to support him. He challenged his supporters to put him on the ballot in all 50 states and then he would agree to run and they did. He had such universal support the GOP and Democrats had to include him in the debates where he did very well.

Had he not wigged out and gone nuts, I think he very well might have been elected but he shot himself in the foot by quitting and then trying to get back in. Evenso Clinton who was elected only got 43% of the vote.

But most of the more obscure candidates are raised up by the more obscure political parties such as the Greens and Libertarians, or they find a small obscure political party to take them on as a candidate.

Since Dick Armey pledges a "hostile" takeover of the GOP by the Tea Party, then I don't understand why some of the libertarians don't start pushing a candidate for the Libertarian Party that would have a viable chance at the nomination. You never hear anything about that party anymore, although I do hear a lot of individuals claim to be "libertarians."

You can thank the 2 big parties for that. It is they who fight at every turn to keep 3rd parties out of Debates, and out of the spot light.

That is why most Tea Party candidates are actually running as Republicans. Because the 2 Big parties have the control over who gets on the inside and no 3rd party is going to as long as we continue to let the Dems and Republicans share power back and forth and keep others from it.

 

[MaggieMae]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed.

Ah, a soul brother!!!!!

This is the drum I've been beating for years now. As long as our fearless leaders are able to increase their own power, prestige, influence, longegivity, and/or personal fortunes via the legislation that they pass, we are not going to see any of the problems seriously addressed, much less fixed.

The only way to remedy that is to pull the plug and make it illegal for Congress or the President to distribute favors or benefits to ANY special group. That would require returning the duties of Congress to what they were prior to Teddy Roosevelt and making sure they don't overstep those bounds again.

Collusion, that's the word. What members of Congress do would land you or I in jail if we did it on our jobs. They are above the law because they make the law. There is no check and balance, only watching each others backs. How does a guy like Charlie Rangle not end up in jail. Think you or I would be walking free? And this bastard is running for relection AND getting support from his partners in crime in Congress.

Some do wind up in jail. Duke Cunningham is still in jail. Maybe Charlie Rangel will be joining him. But the reason they keep getting reelected is because they bring home the bacon to their districts. It's that simple. They will argue there is a fine line between doing their Constitutional duties as representing their constituents and their needs and outright collusion with the private companies best able to get it done.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

I don't buy the corporate sponsor theory either. I think all Presidential candidates are based on ideology. One exception was Ross Perot who had the charisma and intrigue to generate national interest and then literally built a poltiical party from the grass roots to support him. He challenged his supporters to put him on the ballot in all 50 states and then he would agree to run and they did. He had such universal support the GOP and Democrats had to include him in the debates where he did very well.

Had he not wigged out and gone nuts, I think he very well might have been elected but he shot himself in the foot by quitting and then trying to get back in. Evenso Clinton who was elected only got 43% of the vote.

But most of the more obscure candidates are raised up by the more obscure political parties such as the Greens and Libertarians, or they find a small obscure political party to take them on as a candidate.

Since Dick Armey pledges a "hostile" takeover of the GOP by the Tea Party, then I don't understand why some of the libertarians don't start pushing a candidate for the Libertarian Party that would have a viable chance at the nomination. You never hear anything about that party anymore, although I do hear a lot of individuals claim to be "libertarians."

Since Dick Armey has no authority or standing to pledge anything re the Tea Partiers or to officially speak for them he can't and didn't do that. But what he did say in a recent WSJ editorial was to predict a 'hostile takeover' which is code word for complete reform:

While the tea party is not a formal political party, local networks across the nation have moved beyond protests and turned to more practical matters of political accountability. Already, particularly in Republican primaries, fed-up Americans are turning out at the polls to vote out the big spenders. They are supporting candidates who have signed the Contract From America, a statement of policy principles generated online by hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists.

Published in April, the Contract amounts to a tea party "seal of approval." It demands fiscal policies that limit government, restrain spending, promote market reforms in health care—and oppose ObamaCare, tax hikes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will kill job creation and stunt economic growth. Candidates who have signed the Contract—including Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah and Tim Scott in South Carolina—have defeated Republican big spenders in primary elections all across the nation.

These young legislative entrepreneurs will shift the balance in the next Congress, bringing with them a more serious, adult commitment to responsible, restrained government.

But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.

The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.

Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe: A Tea Party Manifesto - WSJ.com

 

[MaggieMae]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed. There's a word for it and for the life of me I can't think of it right now.

As long as it is legal for corporations and individuals to gain from legislation passed by legislators, we are doomed. The word for it is corruption. It starts at the bottom and goes all the way to the top.

If there is monetary or like kind exchange, that is obviously illegal. Quid pro quo is more difficult to prove as being illegal, although it may be unethical. BUT, we are never going to be able to outlaw lobbying completely, although I do think they can be limited in number and more oversight provided as to exactly what tactics they use, how, and on whom.

 

[MaggieMae]

My vote of course was for No. 1 up there as the ONLY #1 priority; however, it covers so many other things that it is almost cheating to check just that one.

For instance, let's hope we get enough conservatives/moderates whether GOP or Democrat into Congress in 2010 to stop healthcare reform before we are so completely screwed and/or it is so convoluted that it will be almost impossible to untangle.

For instance, I just became aware of:

Private insurance is going up already to the tune of 20% to 28% per year and will continue to do so in advance of the much heavier risk and cost to insurance companies once all the provisions of the healthcare reform kick in. That of course will likely provide incentive to implement the public option in a way that private insurance will be crowded out and we will have 100% socialized medicine. Some of you no doubt want that outcome. A lot of us do not.

And, there is the Avastin controversy. The FDA approved this drug a few years ago and it is now prescribed every year to around 18,000 women who have breast cancer. It has critics and also those who swear by it. It is an option to help breast cancer patients while not a cure as such. But though Medicare only covers about 40% of the cost, it is very expensive.

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

That is a probable red flag of how it is going to be in a lot of areas.

Do you have any proof of that or is it another supposition by the anti-health bill folks?

 

[MaggieMae]

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

That is a probable red flag of how it is going to be in a lot of areas.

Wow- this is the first I've heard about, and this is what I call sleazy. No surprise to me, but it's pretty crappy of them to do it.

Well, you saw it on the Internet, so it must be true.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

the point i take from this truth is that independent candidates are too weak to be viable in american politics. i am proud we dont have a southern european clusterfuck of parties and candidates muddling our government.

Yes, it is more efficient to to have more focus and the more our focus is divided, the less effective we can be. Just look at that list of "top priorities" expressed by our President. Almost certainly one of the reasons he has been an ineffective leader is due to his inability to prioritize. The lowliest among us has to be able to put first things first in order to be efficient in much of anything.

So yes, independent parties that don't have highly charismatic and compelling leadership aren't usually going to be able to raise the money or gain the traction necessary to get somebody elected to high office.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party that formed to support him are evidence that it is possible to win over the GOP and Democrats. I honestly believe that if Perot hadn't gone batshit crazy and accused the GOP of all sorts of nutty stuff, etc., he would have been elected in 1992. He was gaining momentum fast. But after he quit and then got back in, he couldn't regain that momentum because too many of us were no longer willing to take a chance on him.

If somebody like him that can win the trust of the 9/12ers and Tea Partiers does emerge in the next year, we might yet see the stranglehold of the GOP and Democrats broken.

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

That's the kind of comment that always gets you in trouble with me. Each priority in your list has a different date, so he was obviously talking about THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, and assuring whomever he was speaking to that it would be "a top priority." Geezus, if he had failed to even mention even one of those at some point in time, the righties would be jumping all over him for having "no interest" in said issue. They would have concocted a "list" of Those Things Obama Doesn't Care About that would have gone viral in a New York minute.

Also, I can't recall a president in history who doesn't have a litany of priorities, each of which takes the spotlight either in due time or when an immediate reaction is required to something spontaneous related to the issue.

Your lack of historical memory always gets in your way eventually, Foxfyre.

 

[MaggieMae]

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

Well that's what we have now. The problem with governing, as I see it, is that all three (House, Senate, Executive Branch) have been comprised of the majority party for two presidencies. This time the Democrats, and the last time the Republicans. When that happens, Lord Acton's admonition comes into play: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It's a human thing.

 

[MaggieMae]

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

As long as he/she does everything you want, that is. C'mon, Foxy, there's really no wiggle room in your personal ideologies.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't care HOW gummed up the works get in partisan bickering, just so long as the worst of the damaging legislation that is already passed is reversed. Then I want two priorities:

1. A business friendly environment with incentives for private businesses to get back to work unencumbered by any more government than is necessary.

2. A Congress focused like a laser beam to make itself as lean and mean and thrifty and non essential to American life except as necessary.

I really don't know how much more "friendly" an environment businesses expect. There are thousands of companies sitting on piles of cash that they could easily exploit rock-bottom interest rates to expand or launch new ventures. It's hard to believe that they are sitting idle just because they're waiting for the perfect climate (what? pay nothing in taxes?) in order to move forward. In the meantime, it is THEIR fault that unemployment continues to stagnate. Those business owners aren't practicing good capitalism; they're practicing an expansion of greed, which has been the theme for far too long.

When the unemployed finally do begin new jobs, who do you think will have their gratitude? The Republicans who tried to block every temporary program to help them survive a crisis, including private businesses who forced them to remain unemployed? Or Democrats who fought for them and made sure they had the umbrellas necessary to help them through the rough times?

Here is my response again since you apparently missed it the first time:

Jobs, however, require fiscal responsibility including reining and reversing spending, putting unspent money back in the bank , rescinding special costly favors to certain constituencies. And jobs require getting the tax structure back to a business friendly status private industry can count on. And jobs require backing off unnecessary regulation that makes it more and more difficult for small business to take risks.

And NONE of that has been stated as a priority of this administration.

So what do we do about that?

What new regulation? What "new" taxes? Have businesses holding their money even bothered to look at the new tax credits that might offset any "new" tax rate (which really will be the old tax rate, by the way)? What "risks" are they looking at? Do they want guaranteed profit margins? How is that capitalism at work? You win some, you lose some. Happens to the best of businesses. Where are their management strategists and CFOs? What if the worst-case scenario actually DOES hit them? Does that mean they'll just close up shop for good or will they find some way to reconfigure their own businesses? I think the latter. In the meantime, I say doing nothing is going to come back to bite them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Amen! This alone would solve half of the other problems. Get people working and many of our other issues will take care of themselves. When people are working the are paying their bills, their mortgage, buying stuff. Borrowing, lending, it all leads to a healthy economy. Make goods and services that are exportable. The dollar is week, what better opportunity than to increase our exports.

When businesses refuse to hire and people aren't working, they're not spending on the products and services those businesses sell. It's a classic Catch-22 situation (you heard that here first, folks, although I notice a few pundits are now also using the analogy).

But again businesses aren't going to blindly throw good money after bad until they know what the tax structure is going to be for the long haul, what the final shakeout of the healthcare legislation is going to require of them, and what regulation is going to be involved in the process. And the Obama administration has so far been the most business unfriendly administration in my memory. The priorities listed so far by this Admiinistration are not doing anything to change that.

Jobs, however, require fiscal responsibility including reining and reversing spending, putting unspent money back in the bank , rescinding special costly favors to certain constituencies. And jobs require getting the tax structure back to a business friendly status private industry can count on. And jobs require backing off unnecessary regulation that makes it more and more difficult for small business to take risks.

And NONE of that has been stated as a priority of this administration.

So what do we do about that?

Fine. I just hope when they need to start dipping into their "savings" to keep existing payroll going, they don't start hinting that they'll soon need a government bailout. I don't care what you say, if there are no buyers for what they're selling, they will soon be OUT of business, period.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't commit capital when you know the odds are that you will not only not net a profit but will most likely take a loss. And if you take enough losses, then there won't be any capital to commit when the economy does turn around. You don't hire people without some assurance that your payroll won't put you into a deficit situation.

Businesses do not operate for our benefit. They operate in their own interests and it is in their interest to show a profit or at least break even. So the No. 1 priority of the Obama Administration right now should be to stop destablizing the economy with ever swelling deficits and do whatever they can to help business believe that a profit is more likely than a loss should they invest their precious working capital. That is done via tax structure and regulation structure.

And when everybody is able to do business for their own interests, everybody prospers.

 

[antagon]

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

thats an awful lot of priorities there. could it be that you only see the correlation of policy packages aligned with your take on politics?

such a candidate as this will not likely get democratic support, and would have to coalesce to the GOP agenda if he wanted input in lawmaking as i was saying. he sounds like a republican to me anyhow.

you remember how our government works? the president is the one with no choice, not the other way around. a president who promises legislation and can't deliver is the one who loses his job, foremost. a third partisan will have to sell as much as his first born just to get a bill drafted on his agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

thats an awful lot of priorities there. could it be that you only see the correlation of policy packages aligned with your take on politics?

such a candidate as this will not likely get democratic support, and would have to coalesce to the GOP agenda if he wanted input in lawmaking as i was saying. he sounds like a republican to me anyhow.

you remember how our government works? the president is the one with no choice, not the other way around. a president who promises legislation and can't deliver is the one who loses his job, foremost. a third partisan will have to sell as much as his first born just to get a bill drafted on his agenda.

Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.

And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.

What are you referring to? We've seen some major legislation rolling out of this Congress: health reform (and the CHIP reauthorization in 2009), major student loan reform, financial reform, ARRA (which, of course, had lots of things in it, ranging from the middle class and small business tax cuts Obama campaigned on, programs in support of his pro-charter school anti-teachers' unions education agenda, investment in health information technology, etc) and the hiring incentives law all became law. Comprehensive energy legislation was passed by the House over a year ago but couldn't get through the Senate.

 

[antagon]

Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.

And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.

priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.

at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.

it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.

as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.

like you said, though: not a priority.