KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:21 AM
Original message |
"Compromise?" No, Mr. President, you got rolled...again. |
|
Last year it was the so-called "health care debate," and the corporations, assisted by their Republican toadies, won that one.
Now it's Bush's tax cuts: with Democrats holding the White House and both houses of Congress, Bush's unfair tax cuts are extended for another two years--a compromise you made with the Republicans. No doubt they'll be allowed to expire during the campaign of 2012. :eyes:
What other "compromises" are there in the making?
|
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:22 AM
Response to Original message |
|
"Last year it was the so-called "health care debate," and the corporations, assisted by their Republican toadies, won that one."
Republicans won? So why are they trying to repeal it?
|
DontTreadOnMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Just remember which President started defunding Social Security! |
|
Yes, it was Obama.
Go ahead... start spinning that one. I am so tired of Democrats defending the continuation of Bush policies, namely starving the beast.
Obama's Legacy: Added ONE TRILLION to the debt with tax cuts!
"Obama's tax cuts will require us to cut back on entitlements..." <--- go ahead... start spinning!
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Because they're bat-shit crazy! |
|
They are against increasing the deficit, yet this "compromise" does just that.
They're fucking hypocrites!
Republicans won? So why are they trying to repeal it? --who was it in the GOP who said their no. 1 job was to make Obama fail?
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. You have a better explanation? |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
tweeternik
(137 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
not sure about the "you're nuts" part but "he did cut the best deal possible" ... for now.
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
That was the argument used to support the pathetic health-care reform bill. "Let's get any bill passed and we can work on changing it...later!"
Pathetic argument.
Let's see what Obama will do come 2012 when the Bush tax-cuts, Part 2, are due to expire...
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. He didn't put up a fight... |
|
During the primaries he vowed to go for a public option, then capitulated: Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public OptionThen this year he vowed to end Bush-era tax cuts, then capitulated: Obama proposes end to Bush-era tax breaks for wealthyI may be "nuts" but at least I use facts. Where do you get your..."information?"
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
20. I get my information from the fact that there's not 60 votes in the Senate. |
|
You get yours from a Grover Norquist ally. Case closed.
|
tweeternik
(137 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. This is the answer, KansDem .... |
ChairmanAgnostic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. where in the constitution is that writ? When did W ever |
|
decide he needed 60?
What a ridiculous meme apologists paint.
He just stabbed progressives and liberals in the back, and gave the GOP the key of how to beat him like a drum on any issue in the future.
|
tweeternik
(137 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
|
the 60 votes needed are the rules of the Senate! C'mon you know that!
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. This is the regurgitation of FOX news twits... |
|
This "argument" was used by FOX News and FOX News wannabees. It somehow finds it way to DU on occasion...
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
27. You support a move to "limit" government by "shrinking it" |
|
...to the point it can be drowned in a bathtub, and yet you call me a "Grover Norquist" ally? Bit of a stretch there...
Although you completely miss the points, you really are good at projection.
|
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
32. 13 month UI extension. |
|
Please explain to me how we get that without giving the GOP something they want. Go ahead. I'm all ears.
Oh, and "BEING A LEADA" and "USIN DA BULLY PULPIT" aren't answers. I wanna know where the votes are coming from without the tax cut deal. You think he WANTED to do this? You honestly think he DOESN'T know how huge this is? If you answer yes to either one you're either really stupid or just so full of hatred for the man it's leaking out your ears.
|
Dawgs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
They didn't win because they got what the want in HCR. They won because they blocked the one thing that Democrats and progressives REALLY wanted.
|
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. "They won because they blocked the one thing that Democrats and progressives REALLY wanted." |
|
No, that's called obstruction, not winning.
By that logic, most legislation, over decades, is a win for Republicans.
|
Dawgs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Bullshit. Democrats not getting the public option was a loss for them, and a WIN for republicans. |
|
Spin it all you want. The Republicans were happy and the Democrats were not. That's enough for Republicans.
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
12. I wanted uninsured to get the care they needed without going broke. |
|
And I wanted a mechanism to control prices.
I got both. So.... yeah.
|
Dawgs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. What mechanism controls prices? |
|
My uninsured brother has to spend $10,000 for hernia surgery. So how did we get both?
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
22. Considering the bill hasn't yet been fully implemented, your anecdote fails miserably. (nt) |
Dawgs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
30. Uh, you said you got both. Clearly you, or I, or my brother didn't. |
|
I see you also didn't tell me how they are controlling costs. Are you saying we have to wait until they go up 50%, and then in 2013 they will be stopped? And how will they be controlled without a public option; the one thing Obama agreed to drop.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
19. Because it scores them political points to try to repeal it. It doesn't mean they didn't win. |
|
It just means it's useful for them to go for more.
If I negotiate with you to trade your quarter for my dime and you agree, I won. If I go around bitching that the deal was unfair and I want a new deal where I keep your quarter and you give me another nickle I still won, whether I get the new deal or not. And you can claim that my apparent unhappiness is evidence that the original deal must be pretty good for you but you'll look no smarter than Obama does now.
|
Odin2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
33. No, HE CAVED. HE CAPITULATED. |
|
I don't think you know what "compromise" means, it requires BOTH sides to give-and-take, and to PLAY HARDBALL AND REFUSE A DEAL if the other side asks for too much.
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message |
3. What other "compromises?" - Next up is Social Security. nt |
ibegurpard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message |
6. no child left behind pumped up on steroids with charter schools thrown in the mix |
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
21. It sure is. It's excellent policy, and the Center for American Progress agrees. |
|
Not to mention most civil rights groups agree, and nearly every education group not affiliated with the teachers' unions. So I'm not sure which side you're really on here.
|
TBF
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message |
13. next on the list - wave goodbye to your mortgage interest deduction |
Phx_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 02:56 PM
Response to Original message |
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Most sensible Americans who heard Obama today will agree with what he did |
|
tax cuts for the middle class are extended, 2 million people who were to lose their unemployment checks will not. Yes, the Bush tax cut was extended and, unfortunately, unless it was done the GOP would have sat on the middle class and unemployment extentions. A president has to make priorities and Obama did--he put helping the greater number of people in the short-term and we will revisit the tax cuts in 2012.
|
WiffenPoof
(676 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
That President Obama said something to the effect that he was going to change the way Washington worked.
-PLA
|
rasputin1952
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
31. To put this into proper context, it was a few D's in congress that |
|
messed things up, one of them being my own Ben Nelson wtf-NE. You have no idea how disgusted I am at Nelson, and I tell him often when he screws up, (the few times he's voted in favor the nation, I send him a congrat's).
Congress gets the blame placed squarely at their feet, PO cannot make laws, he can only try to influence policy.
Blaming PO for literally everything is a false argument.
|
Life Long Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
What other "compromises" are there in the making?
Maybe this will help. Obama said today, “This Country Was Founded on Compromise”
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message |
35. He doesn't seem to know the difference between compromising |
|
and compromising himself.
:headbang: rocktivity
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |