Poll: Americans Want Obama to Negotiate

[Seawytch]

unless crimes are committe like perjury

Guess again...

Founding Fathers Didn't Flinch

what is it with you progressives that you refused to omit Bill Clinton committed a crime it wasn't about oral sex it was about him lying to a grand jury which is a crime

Because it wasn't about either...it was about trying to take down President Clinton. It failed.

Do you believe that what Clinton did is anywhere on par with what Founding Father Alexander Hamilton did?

 

[thanatos144]

Guess again...

Founding Fathers Didn't Flinch

what is it with you progressives that you refused to omit Bill Clinton committed a crime it wasn't about oral sex it was about him lying to a grand jury which is a crime

Because it wasn't about either...it was about trying to take down President Clinton. It failed.

Do you believe that what Clinton did is anywhere on par with what Founding Father Alexander Hamilton did?

yes he abused his power to prey on an innocent intern

 

[SFC Ollie]

Problem: The credit cards are maxed out, and we can't afford the payments.

Republican Analysis: Obviously, we should stop charging.

Democrat Analysis: Obviously, our credit limit is too low.

"Obviously, we're not generating enough revenue" said no-one ever due to fear of electoral blowback.

I guess we should have worked on jobs that would create revenue instead of a screwed up power grab that will cost more spending...

 

[P@triot]

Maybe they did. I don't know or care. What I do know and care about is that they never acted the petulant child over not getting their way. The Republicans are doing that now. The Democrats never threatened to default the nation or shut down the government when they couldn't get what they wanted done legislatively but that is what the GOP is doing...like a child who wants candy at the store.

Well, any parent knows that if you give into the petulant child, you'll never have a quiet trip to the store ever again.

And that's the problem. You really don't know (and you really don't care). You refuse to learn the facts and understand them. You just know you were indoctrinated to support Dumocrats and so you do. And that is why this nation is $17 trillion in debt and Obama has kept the real unemployment at 14% for 5 years now.

I don't care why they did it because there were no consequences to their actions. Had the Dems been petulant children like the GOP and held the country hostage, I would have cared a great deal. They didn't.

It's not "holding the country hostage" it's stopping Obama from collapsing us. $17 trillion Seawytch. And the fact that you would only care if they stopped spending money shows you only care about government spending so you can suckle at the government teat. You don't care if it's Constitutional. You don't care if it hurts other people. You don't care if it will collapse the U.S. You just want your handouts.

And intentionally voting against what he actually thought was the right thing to do proves that Obama is a ****'n child.

It's so refreshing to see the only adults in the room finally take control. The country is doing just fine, it's not being held hostage. It's just wasting a little less money.

 

[thanatos144]

Wouldn't it be Reid and Obama be the ones holding everyone hostage because they are demanding a clean CR and a raise in the debt ceiling BEFORE THEY WILL NEGOTIATE? Democrats are huge spoiled babies that are hurting kids with cancer and vets and families of dead vets.

 

[P@triot]

Jefferson was a horn dog...but that did not seem to hamper his abilities. This is why political "sex scandals" are so ridiculous.

unless crimes are committe like perjury

Guess again...

Founding Fathers Didn't Flinch

Dumbocrat "logic" - because Richard Ramirez brutally raped, tortured, and murdered women it must be ok....

Bill Clinton committed perjury. That's a felony. He should have gone to prison for that felony.

Stop trying to justify the despicable actions of your filthy and deplorable party. They cannot be justified. Two wrongs do not make a right and if that's your only argument, you have no argument. And you clearly have no integrity either trying to justify this despicable shit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If we remember no one mentioned Kennedy's flings, or Johnson's. Why? not because of left vs right, but back then we still respected their privacy and it wasn't something a Gentleman or Lady talked about in public....

Now watch someone try to deny they had affairs...To make things easy, So did Ike.......

 

[Toro]

The CR (Continuing Resolution) represents Republican spending levels. The Democrats have negotiated themselves into a hole where they are now begging for Republican spending levels just so they can save an established law.

Debt Ceiling increases without any attempts by the Democrats to take hostages

Reagan: 18
Bush 41: 9
Bush 43 7

Obama has already agreed to Continuing Resolution bill that reflects their spending levels. It represents more than a compromise by Obama because he didn't get his spending levels. But the GOP doesn't care about compromise. They're not looking to negotiate. They want to destroy ObamaCare, and they are willing to blow up the economy over it.

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

If you were a person capable of reason, you would realize that the casting of meaningless votes against the inevitable passage of a raising of the debt ceiling is a far cry from casting votes that in fact cause the failure of a raising of the debt ceiling.

^^^^^^^^^^
Partisan rationalization, i.e. it's bad when they do it but OK when we do it.

 

[Toro]

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

So IOW, rather than do the right thing and vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, they instead chose to play petty partisan politics because their base loathed Bush. If symbolism means nothing, why did they do it?

Rationalization, confirmation bias and partisanship aren't just the provinces of the Right.

 

[P@triot]

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

So IOW, rather than do the right thing and vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, they instead chose to play petty partisan politics because their base loathed Bush. If symbolism means nothing, why did they do it?

Rationalization, confirmation bias and partisanship aren't just the provinces of the Right.

Come on [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION].... what's you're excuse now that you have a signed document by Barack Obama swearing his commitment to lowering the national debt?

 

[tinydancer]

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

So IOW, rather than do the right thing and vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, they instead chose to play petty partisan politics because their base loathed Bush. If symbolism means nothing, why did they do it?

Rationalization, confirmation bias and partisanship aren't just the provinces of the Right.

I found this last night. It's so spot on regarding Obama, the Democrats and bias. Both parties have partisanship, but D's refuse consistently to admit it.


The Pinocchio Test

This is why many Americans hate politics.

The young senator from Illinois presumably did not want to buck the rest of his party establishment in voting for increasing the debt limit — not when there were just enough Republicans willing to support a president from their own party. But Obama would be on much more solid ground today if he had given a speech back in 2006 that sounded more like his news conference in 2013.

For making an argument that the president now decries as politics, he earns the upside-down Pinocchio, signifying a major-league flip-flop.

(We have rarely given this ruling, but are eager for other examples from readers.)

Annotating Obama?s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit - The Washington Post

 

[Seawytch]

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

So IOW, rather than do the right thing and vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, they instead chose to play petty partisan politics because their base loathed Bush. If symbolism means nothing, why did they do it?

Rationalization, confirmation bias and partisanship aren't just the provinces of the Right.

Symbolism


1. the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.

Is a symbolic vote that you KNOW does nothing the same as shutting down the government and defaulting? No.

 

[antique4xpu]

it really is so simple

bush republicans almost destroyed america .........

and they do not want to pay for the repairs

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's so simple. both sides are ******* wrong. in 2006 the stories were reversed. And they were both wrong then too....

Facts are we have to cut back on spending. The problem is that the two sides refuse to admit it. If they have control that is....

One side wants to cut spending and taxes.
The other side wants more taxes and more spending.

And they are still both wrong.

Best solution is to create more jobs to create a better tax base. And cut spending. But then that's just my own opinion........

 

[The T]

Wouldn't it be Reid and Obama be the ones holding everyone hostage because they are demanding a clean CR and a raise in the debt ceiling BEFORE THEY WILL NEGOTIATE? Democrats are huge spoiled babies that are hurting kids with cancer and vets and families of dead vets.

YEP. HURT the people create the crises...BLAME the other side...MAKE the other side inhuman...Capitalize on the result of your work...

Alinsky...

*BY DESIGN*...These people are open about it...they're that arrogant..."WE WON...now sit down and shut up..."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

it really is so simple

bush republicans almost destroyed america .........

and they do not want to pay for the repairs

Exactly how is the entitlement of health care, and including that budget into our government expense, a repair on our economy? Do we not have enough problems trying to solve social security and Medicare without introducing another Trojan horse into the mix?

You look to blame "Bush Republicans", but fail to realize who actual became speaker back in 2006, as well as which party held the senate. Which leads me to ask - How exactly did two government sponsored giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which plays a huge effect upon our economy, was found to be in such fianancial dire but the Democrats chose to look the other way and sweep it under the rug? Where was all the accountability and concern about the economy then?

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Euroconservativ]

I don't understand why the US doesn't follow Germany's conservative approach, it's certainly working there. Cut spending and raising taxes has jettisoned Germany's recovery, while the US's spins it's wheels going nowhere. It's been a pain for the German people in the short term but the long term result is proving rewarding.

Because the US has elected the socialists into power and Germany elected conservatives.

We can be compared to France and their idiocy of 75% tax on a million euro ( ruled unconstitutional, btw), not to Germany.

Germany actually proves that CONSERVATISM works, we prove - that LEFTISM does not.

You do know conservatives in Germany are much more moderate than their American counterparts and much more socialistic too.
Germany is more socialist than the US. It's not even close. Germany spends 28.8% of their GDP on social programs, the US spends 23.4% of it's GDP on social programs.
Net Social Expenditure % of gdp statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster

German conservatives are the last bastion against reckless central banking and keynesianism.

Right now the difference between the US and german public spending, as a share of GDP, is smaller than ever. Even if the US has not a national Sales Tax or VAT.

By the way, there are major issues other than "social programs". If the vast majority of the population demands having certain social programs, they will have it, and no conservative can stop it. It's beyond ideology.


Now, not so socialist or "moderate" things in german conservatism:

* Budget: the Constitution now requires a federal balanced budget from 2016, and states from 2020. Except in cases of deep recession and strong decrease of revenues, or natural disaster.

* Church: There is a church tax.

* Gay marriage and adoption: They are against it.

* Abortion: They support the current status quo: abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks, with mandatory counseling days to try to convince the woman. The government pays for it only for low-income women.

* Research involving human embryos: No government money for it, and other strict provisions.

* Progressiveness: a single person who makes €55K pays 42%. A person who makes €5 million pays 45%.

* Regressiveness: German conservatives prefer to raise the VAT and indirect consumption taxes instead of income taxes.

* Capital gains: No special capital gains tax. Only under certain conditions gains from private disposal may be taxed. Only since 2009 levies a final tax that may take effect like a capital gains tax for resident persons.

* Corporate tax rate: down from almost 60% in the 1990s to 29%. The federal corporate tax rate was lowered from 25% to 15% in 2008.

* Central Banking: No mandate to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Not allowed to directly and massively buy government bonds. Monetary policy should not replace reforms in order to achieve growth. For german conservatives, these are non-negotiable points (see Eurozone crisis).

* Immigration: A level of integration and language skills is required. Illegal immigration is a criminal offense. Conservatives oppose mass amnesties both at home and the European Union.

 

[editec]

Let me just remind ya'll that social programs are not social-ISM.

I know that confuses the hell out of many of you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let me just remind ya'll that social programs are not social-ISM.

I know that confuses the hell out of many of you.

obamacare the countries biggest central planning social program is well under way