Really? The president has offered to cut SS benefits, twice. Is that winning?
So is the Dems'. See Sanders and Harkin and the progressive caucus
Yah, he's so smart that no one can figure it out. Edit: Don't be sad. Krugman can't figure it out either
A well-thought-out strategy that has changed three times in two weeks, thanks to begging from Dems in Congress and outrage among the voters.
I think everyone agrees on this
I guess, if hating that a DEM president if offering completely uneccessary SS benefit cut = hate toward the president. Then yes.
I am determined to undermine his attempt to cut benefits. Thankfully, so are a handful of real Dems in the Congress. I plead guilty, though if I am a right winger, then you as a "centrist" are probably a fascist. and why is it that when the president got trounced in 2010, we were, "the left" that didn't show up, but now we're right wing moles?
I do find the dance you're doing amusing though. "It's just in the newspaper - you can't believe it"..."He just said it to get the Repukes to react"..."He's offsetting the benefit cuts for the neediest"..."He never actually said that - Carney did"...
It sometimes makes me dizzy, but it's funny up until then.
which is why good governance is also good politics, except in a completely broken system like ours.
- President Obama
So Obama says that Dems and seniors are not OK with benefit cuts, but he is willing to stand up to us and make them anyway.
Is English your 2nd or 3rd language or something?
Seniors who depend on Social Security are American men & women who have worked hard for 4 decades to make this a better country, and now are collecting what we as a nation owe to them. They're plenty tough enough already. The ones I need to talk tough to are the billionaires who got rich, in large measure, off of the labor of SS recipients, and to people like yourself who amke a lot of money shilling for those same billionaires. And that tough talk is coming very soon, as soon as this current deal is finalized. Consider this a head's up".
Oh, well. A guy can dream
...erp...He needs a Civics class...erp...He's a racist...erp...He never like Obama...erp...He's not a real Dem
If Bush, during his 1st term, had adopted a mirror-image agenda of Obama's (by that I mean a center-left agenda of modest gun control, expansion of SS and Medicare, large infrastructure expenditures, public school support, strengthening of environmental protections, continuation of Clinton tax rates), he would been lambasted by the Republican base, and very likely primary'd in 2004. However, had he survived the primary challenge, he might well have won re-election legitimately. As it was he governed to his base, enacted a far right government, and had to steal the 2004 election.
I said that all of the committed Dems voted in 2010. The Dem president and Congress, who were voted in by millions of indy's and swing voters in 2008, failed to deliver the change they promised in 2008. A typical example was a caller to Hartmann in the summer of 2010, during Brunch With Bernie. He said that he typically voted R but had voted for Obama in 2008 because he could not abide our government torturing prisoners, and had believed that Obama would summarily end that practice. Since the president had decide to continue the practice, he was going to go back to voting primarily (R). This is the kind of voter who came out for Obama in 2008 then stayed home in 2010, not the liberals.
Bush was able to enact a far right (nearly fascist) agenda with meager or non-existent majorities in Congress, while Obama was able to do nearly nothing of a populist nature with wide majorities. So "realism" means nothing in this context.
George Bush avoided intramural squabbles by adopting a far right agenda - PATRIOT act, treasury-sucking wars, loosening of gun restrictions, top-heavy tax cuts, clamp down on dissent, union-busting, attempts to corporatize schools and SS, and so forth. He thus avoided complaints from Republicans.
Obama has chosen the opposite tack - adopt a Republican agenda, and get some Dems to sign on to deplorable policies just because he calls himself a Dem. The good news for him is that in this way he is able to enact conservative legislation with "bi-partisan" support. The downside is that he has to listen to attacks from those he is actually serving (MIC, Gun Culture, Billionaires, Hate Radio, cable "news" because he calls himself a (D), as well as those who feel betrayed (civil libertarians, liberals, the poor, seniors, ...) because they expected different things from a (D). But most of the latter group have no real voice anyway, and are denigrated by other so-called Dems who will support anything a (D) does.
It's all politics, and the president has chosen the path that works best for him. It is up to each individual to decide to follow or resist.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Home country: USA, for now
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 36,392