Budget talks: This is getting nasty

So Obama is honorable because healthcare reform was a major platform plank, he got a mandate and kept his word?

 

Read a really good column on Saturday in the NYT comparing Obama and Nixon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/the-madman-theory.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=richard%20nixon&st=cse
Kind of funny that Nixon was the father of what are now some real liberal tenants:

Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision.

Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam.

And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president.

 

He has quite an extensive list of promises not kept. Obama is many things...honorable is not one of them.

 

So if the tea partiers don't keep all of their campaign promises - because not raising taxes was not their only issue - then they are not honorable?

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

Are you new here? Have you never seen any of o_t's posts?

 

Elections have consequences.

I certainly wasn't surprised when Obama followed through on Health Care Reform.

 

If I were Obama, my attitude would be, if the Tea Party wants to impeach, let 'em try. Get that spinal implant, Mr. President.
The Tea Party is all about removing from Obama from office. If they ruin the economy doing it, well, they don't care. They really don't mind if the USA gets demoted to junk bond status by S&P.
Every poll showed the majority of Americans wanted the Bush tax cut repealed for those over $250,000 (I have no problem with bumping that number up a bit as part of negotiation). Instead, Obama folded like a cheap chair.
Bill Maher was right - where did the badass black man I elected to the White House disappear to? The sooner Obama realizes the Marquis of Queensbury rules have long since been tossed out the window, the better.

 

This is insane. We had two wars and the already predicted rise in the cost of so-called entitlement programs. Then we were on the brink of another depression which, history shows, is the worst time for austerity. So your portrayal of events is not based on reality and is, in fact, insane.

We are very much in a dilemma because we have both debt and the threat of depression. Ignoring the economy to address debt probably assures depression. Dealing with the economy can potentially deal with both issues because an improved economy increases revenue and allows you greater flexibility to pay down debt.

 

And the thing is, their taxes were lowered by the federal government in the last 10 years. So they haven't been "taxed enough already".

 

This is the biggest joke of all.

The need for the left to excuse/describe every mistake, every failure, every broken promise by ascribing good intentions to them -- his desire to compromise for instance -- shows how deluded some of you are.

The guy that said of Republicans, “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back,” is determined to compromise.

The guy that told John Boehner to not call his bluff and that he would, "take it to the American people" is the ultimate compromise?