Budget talks: This is getting nasty

You're not making any sense at all. I think you want cheerleading of some sort but I don't do that. The GOP pushed through bad ideas because the president is a poor negotiator and, at best, countered bad ideas with bad ideas.

You portray it as a "loss," I portray it as a failure. He had the public on his side in ending the Bush tax cuts for upper income workers, but somehow flubbed it twice. That's on him as a politician, not some sort of loss in the battle of ideas or whatnot.

By your logic, the free swinger just struck out because he struck out.

No need for analysis, just an out.

 

I honestly would like to hear a lefty give a rational reason for why Barrack Obama deserves a second term that goes beyond "well he's better than Romney/Pawlenty/Palin....." because that is not relevant.

Based on the criteria they set up to explain to the world why they thought GWB was a horrible president, I'm not sure how any of them could make a case for Obama.

And I don't believe the economy, good or bad, is the President's fault in almost every case but since most simpletons in this country do, well, when can we start blaming Obama for this economy seeing as his promise of "winds of change" was a bunch of bullshit to begin with.

If someone believed that GWB was a terrible president because his economy was terrible well, they could not reasonably now argue that we should re-elect Obama.

 

Simple, Obama's fucking up executing things that, in theory, Democrats generally agree with. With a major exception or two (Medicare Part D comes to mind) Bush executed the will of his base. Iraq was popular with the right and the center at the time of the invasion, if you recall and the "war," as in the part where you meet the army in the field and kick their ass, went quite swimmingly, leading to flight jackets and boastful signs on ship decks. The right generally loved the tax cuts. They were what they were advertised to be.

Democrats are generally with Obama on health care reform and give him credit for getting some form of it passed. But few Democrats will say that what Obama pushed through congress is what they had envisioned. They like the idea, but not the execution.

They were with him on stimulus, but what a half-ass stimulus with an expensive price tag with a large chunk wasted on useless (as far as stimulus goes) tax cuts.

So given the choice between somebody who's awkwardly and ineffectively trying to do something they agree with and somebody who stands for something else entirely, well the choice is obvious.

 

Why did Mark Ingram win the 2009 Heisman? Because somebody had to.

 

Once again - "he is better than the other side" is not an acceptable or good answer.

But I suppose you are saying that Democrats are OK with a guy who fucks up royally, as long as his sound bytes say the things they like to hear?

Which means, my God, they are dumber than I thought.

The point is - at what point to people from both parties stop being so blindly loyal to their party that they make Steelers fans seem rational and objective?

 

zag -- I would love to look at someone different at this point. Who ya got?

 

He's going to get credit for more than sound bytes. He got some form of health care reform done, which he'll get credit for from his base. He pushed for stimulus, which is popular with his base. If you vote for the other party, those things would likely have been off the table. It makes absolutely no sense to say "well the guy I agree with failed to get our "agenda" through so I'm going to support the guy whose ideas I hate."

If the choice is bad idea or better idea done poorly, you go with the better idea. One side guarantees you won't get what you want, the other side doesn't.

Your question would make more sense if you were addressing it to independent or moderate voters, not Democrats.

 

Rush Limbaugh today on the Obamanoids: People who wind up as journalists just aren't very smart.

 

I'll try, although it may go into the "He's better than the other guy/gal".

With Obama, at least I feel that he's a president that would listen to what people who are struggling financially want to say, and is willing to help. Now, the execution of what he does hasn't always been great, and he should be doing much better. But at least, I feel that he's trying. I don't think anyone from the GOP cares what happens to the middle class or the poor, and any time they benefit, it's only as a byproduct of the rich benefitting more.

I'm not willing to blame Obama at all for the economy. Bush drove it off a cliff, Obama's trying to climb back up, and the GOPers at the top keep throwing stones at him hoping to knock him back down into the valley.

 

Inaccurate, of course . . . but, then, Slush has been making serious bank by ignoring reality while
pandering to loser righties' personal and political prejudices for many years now, and isn't about to stop.

It's no coincidence that most of the trolls who haunt this site aren't in the business.

 

Attribution, please.

 

Smart piece in the current Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/


All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation’s treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. It was this segment of the population, almost exclusively, that held the key to future growth and future returns. The analysts, Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod, and Narendra Singh, had coined a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy.


According to Gallup, from May 2009 to May 2011, daily consumer spending rose by 16 percent among Americans earning more than $90,000 a year; among all other Americans, spending was completely flat. The consumer recovery, such as it is, appears to be driven by the affluent, not by the masses. Three years after the crash of 2008, the rich and well educated are putting the recession behind them. The rest of America is stuck in neutral or reverse.