IF I wanted to Vote for Supply Side President I would have voted for Mccain

[Homer12]

Obama and his administration just stabbed all of us "liberal Critics" who worked to get him elected in the back.

I am no longer a Barack Obama supporter, maybe Barack Chamberlain Obama suits him better.

I wanted to see him at least fight, we all would have fought with him, but instead capitulated before even the first "metaphorical" punch was throne.

[griffi94]

1. i'm sure it will trickle down.......

this time........maybe.

[bajamary]

3. more like pissed on

yep, good old trickle down has never worked as it's more like being pissed on...now that always trickles down

[Bucky]

2. I'm pissed at Obama, too, but he's not quite a supply sider.

He's knuckling under to supply side bullies, but he's not one of the idiots.

He's only surrendering to them.


 

[bajamary]

4. remember Obama's from Univ of Chicago

University of Chicago is the epic center of the supply siders Milton Freedman and gang.

Remember, Obama's chief economic advisor, until late, was Larry Summers

Watch the documentary "Inside Job", a great film

[vi5]

5. Not quite?

Every single economic initiative of his presidency has been approached as though supply side economics is the basis for everything. Even the "victories" like healthcare reform is predicated on supply side. Every member of his economic team from the beginning are supply siders.

Sadly it's not just him it's most of the Democratic party at this point. Much like they've internalized the GOP mantra that "Big Military spending and military action =strong on national defense" they've also internalized the notion that free market, supply side capitalism is the best and only way to approach anything.

He may not be AS supply side as some of the GOP but he definitely seems to believe that it should be at the core of everything we do.

[dennis4868]

6. Here we go again....

WHAT DOES FIGHT MEAN?

Obama is dealing with a republican party that has and was going to fillubuster anything that may help the american people, including a tax cut only for the middle class....THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL THAT THE REPUBS WERE NOT GOING TO FILLUBUSTER THIS (actuslly they already did fillubuster this last week). Plus, the DINOs in the senate were voting with the repubs. So no matter how much Obama fought on this nothing was going to change. And what does fight mean? Like Obama said, a majority of the people already agree with Obama and liberals that tax cuts for the rich don't make sense. So Obama, the american people, unemployment insurance for another 13 months, extending the earned income tax credit to benefit families, college tax credits, and a pay-roll tax cut are all being held hostage for tax cuts for the rich. WE CAN ALL FIGHT WITH HIM BUT THE REPUBS WOULD NOT GIVE A SHIT AND GIVE IN....they are prepared to drive this country off a cliff if it means they get more power. So what, where, and who would we fight?

[bajamary]

7. but FDR fought and won

History shows us that other presidents, namely FDR, did fight against seemingly unsurmountable odds and he WON.

The protracted battle to create Frances Perkins' dream, otherwise known as Social Security, was considered to be absolutely unwinnable - not a snow balls chance in hell, as they said at the time.

But they stood and fought and they WON.

No amount of Obama excusing, our "the odds were against us" etc.

When you know the history of what Frances Perkins and FDR created, Obama is a mere shadow, and a very pale one at that.

[dennis4868]

8. FDR did not get everything at first.....

Obama reiterated this during his presser today.

Plus, as another DU posted some months back:

Back in FDR's time, there were 96 Senators in Congress, because we had only 48 states then.

From 1933-1935, there were 59 Democratic Senators. That's 61.45%. Filibuster-proof.

From 1935-1937, there were 69 Democratic Senators out of 96 total.

From 1937-1939, there were 75 Democratic Senators out of 96 total.

From 1939-1941, there were 69 Democratic Senators out of 96 total.

That's why FDR could tell his opponents to essentially "screw off!" and do whatever he wanted over their loud objections. He had the full, unwavering, support of Congress.

THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE WITH OBAMA....SO DON'T TELL ME FDR "FOUGHT."

[Homer12]

9. So what, where, and who would we fight?

"So what, where, and who would we fight?"


Who: Republicans and conserva dems
Where: In congress
What: the top 2%

[dennis4868]

10. and the last question is....

how? WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH AN OPPOSITION PARTY THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND NO MATTER WHAT - how would you get to 60 votes in the senate? If 99.999999% of the people are against tax cuts for the rich, the repubs in the senate would not stop the fillubuster because it would be an Obama victory. So how would you change the mind of repubs?