Kyle Drennen makes a great point here. While I’m not a fan of any deal in which we allow more spending in return for everything staying status quo, it WAS a compromise. I understand politics is compromise (Obama didn’t understand that for the last two years prior to yesterday unfortunately) and both the GOP and Obama gave up some things in return for others. So where was the media in all this? Good question….Kyle answers:
Before the votes had even been cast in the midterm election, on ABC’s November 2 Good Morning America, former Bill Clinton advisor and co-host George Stephanopoulos worried: “[Republicans] have to make a choice, as well. Do they choose to cooperate with President Obama or stand firm on principle, which is going to guarantee gridlock?”
The next day on CBS’s Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked newly reelected Nevada Senator Harry Reid about GOP stubbornness: “…the Republicans say over and over and over again for the last two months, no compromise, no compromise, no compromise.” That same day on NBC’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked former Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw what presumptive Republican House Speaker John Boehner would do “when that hand [of compromise] comes out from President Obama.” Brokaw advised that Boehner would have to “deal with his own party…with the Tea Party folks who are coming in and saying, ‘We draw the line here, we’re not interested in compromise.'”~~~Given the degree of media apprehension over the potential for congressional gridlock, one would think that President Obama’s announcement Monday evening of a deal on taxes would have been welcome news. However, on Sunday’s ABC World News, before the deal was even official, Washington editor Rick Klein lamented: “President Obama has been clear this was a critical position and he is caving on it, in allowing all the tax cuts to be extended.” Appearing on MSNBC’s Jansing & Co. on Tuesday, former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather expounded: “This is a political nightmare for Barack Obama as president. The more left portion of his party hates this, it hates it with a passion….he’s almost guaranteed, if this goes through, to have a serious challenge in a Democratic primary for president in 2012.”
Hmmmmm, we sure that Journolist got shut down? I’m betting there is another version of it somewhere on the web, probably sharing the same server as Assange. I mean you notice that the talking points by these talking heads were all the same and all going in the same direction? They were moaning and groaning about the coming lack of bipartisan compromise and NOW they are all angry that there was actual bipartisan compromise.
Ahhhh, the smell of Hypocrisy.
Apparently those in news media are in favor of compromise when they are pushing Republicans to abandon conservative principles but chagrined when Democrats put aside liberal orthodoxy in order to pass legislation.
As for the tax deal itself, it sucks. The deal would of been great if it had offset the spending on the unemployment benefits somewhere, somehow. But no. Instead we got more spending and no way to pay for it except add more to the ever increasing, staggering debt.
I blame both parties for this.
All these new Conservatives going to Washington better look at this deal long and hard and understand that if they push aside the core conservative principals, as this Congress did, they will find themselves thrown out of office in short order.
The MSM will continue their hypocrisy but that doesn’t mean the newly elected leaders should.
See author page
All Righty then. If it means less frivolous Spending, HEY! Bring on the Gridlock, I’ll take mine on the rocks with a twist of some Deaf Incumbents Ears.
No one listened to that voice that came from the polling places. Compromise is not the solution.
Bi Partisanship died a horrible death in 2008. “WE WON” became the motto and the Spending went on unabated and irresponsibly. Record Public Debt for the History of the Planet let alone any Government.
*Reduce Spending NOW.
*Reduce the Size of Gummint.
*Make Earmarks a Capital Crime
*Cut every Department by 50% NOW.
*Start Governing with the Consent of the Governed as the Standard.
*I did NOT Consent to this Fiscally Irresponsible approach to running the Republic.
January 23, 2009, just three days into Obama’s term.
What got reported as to Obama’s attitude toward working with Republicans?
Wall Street Journal
I guess the chickens are coming home to roost.
We have a much larger problem than Bush’s tax extension. The House just passed the Dream Act 216-198. This could destroy America folks. If you are prone to pray, please do so now.
I served in the late 60’s. I met several non-Americans who were serving in order to eventually earn their American citizenship. As far as I was concerned, they were already Americans. Now, we are giving illegal aliens the choice of serving or free college tuition: the same tuition that is causing legal students to go into debt for twenty years. Is it me or does this sound like something from Alice’s Wonderland Adventures.
It is time to get rid of fraud in government. I say give them 45 days of amnesty, then make government fraud punishable by twenty years and then investigate and prosecute with vengeance, including those like Rangel and Waters, everyone who is ripping off the federal government and is abusing federal money, position, and influence.
Hopefully the Senate will continue to do their job and reject this dispcable bill!!
I haven’t noticed either Houses doing what is best for America lately. Have you?
when does a lame duck session end?
will the dream act pass? I hope not…bad bill.
Timothy, the lame duck session won’t end until the newly elected members are seated.
Old Trooper 2 has got it perfectly. No spending…..wow!! what a concept for congress. I don’t think they have ever tried that before.
Class Warriors Got What They Wished For
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/class_warriors_got_what_they_w.html
We could see & smell this coming from a mile off… 😛
Lowest pay raise for military in nearly 50 years?
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/07/lowest-pay-raise-for-military-in-nearly-50-years/
Pay and Perquisites of Members of Congress, Including A History of House and Senate Salaries
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm
SOLUTION: Roll Congressional & Senate Pay back 50 years!
1955 – 1965 $22,500
Dismiss 100% of the Appointed but NOT Vetted by Senate Czars NOW!
Cut Executive & Judicial Branch Pay by 50%
Lets see how that goes over. Did any of You All see this coming? Way to Go. That’s what I call “Supporting America’s Second Greatest Generation All the Way! (SPIT!)
It seems to me that all these lefties who are calling for higher taxes on the rich are themselves, considered Rich by most peoples standards. Personally I don’t make anywhere near $250,000 a year or a million or whatever the benchmark became under this regime but these self loathing rich people who are calling for higher taxes on everyone so obama can re-distribute it to folks poorer than themselves can feel free and welcome to redistribute a portion of thier fortunes to me at anytime they feel bad about being better off than I am.
If lower income taxes on wealthy,job creating Americans have a history of spurring job growth in the private sector then I say lets give it another try because the gov’t taking more money out of rich folks pockets doesn’t seem to create jack squat,except for perhaps more people dependant on gov’t for the food on the table.
Its nice to see the lefties screaming bloody hell about Obamas lying and promise breaking behavior.
I guess we’re all racists now huh?
Skookum
What? There is no free college. The Dream Act would repeal section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which currently discourages states from providing in-state tuition or other higher education benefits without regard to immigration status.
I don’t agree with the Dream Act in its current form, but I do agree with the basic premise. But I won’t Threadjack Curt here. I’d be happy to discuss it in the Open Thread.
Passage of DREAM Act will insure border will not be secured. Secure border should be first priority, then discussions can begin. If you folks aren’t stocking up on guns and ammo, you will soon wish you had. With this past election Obama is like a cornered mad dog.
OLD TROOPER 2, YOU HAVE THE BEST CALCULATION, OF WHAT SHOULD BE CUT FIRST,
IT’S AT THE HEAD TOP STEP OF THE LADDER EXTREMEME SPENDERS, SO THEY HAVE A TASTE OF IT FIRST HAND BEFORE THEY IMPOSE A BURDEN TO THE MILITARYS WHO SHOULD BE
THE ONE THAT ARE NURTURE BY THEIR GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE NATION TO SURVIVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THANK YOU BYE
Well it is quite silly to whine about this, cons. Obama won an overwhelming mandate in the last presidential election; this gave him a lots of seats to work with and clout to do it. He was criticized by you cons for not being “bipartisan” (translation: “give up what you actually want in favor of a weak tea version of OUR agenda”) and was criticized by liberals for even trying to work with the obviously recalcitrant GOPer cons. When the Dems lost the midterms (hint: not Obama, since HE was not running) the call was for him to compromise. Well since he did this time, why is it WRONG for the same media that ripped him a new one for “not being bipartisan” to rip the GOPer cons for “knuckling under” and signing on to what was obviously a good deal for Obama?
It is a standard game of pessimistic contrarian media talk: if someone is clearly and obviously riding high, they claim he is “resting on his laurels” and “exhibiting hubris.” If he is low, they ask “how low can he go?” It is why the GOPer cons won the last mini-cycle and immediately the media questioned “How will they stop a civil war between the tea baggers and the country club Republicans.” If you were not important, no one would be writing about you . . . so stop the incessant whining and get to work trying to balance the budget.
Ummmm braindead, WHEN did he EVER try to work with the GOP? Seriously, you really have no clue how stupid and dishonest you sound, do you?
Everyone seems to forget the taxes on the “rich” are nothing of the sort. They are taxes on those wanting to become rich. The rich put their money in low tax and taxfree entities where they remain unaffected by all the empty claims of “soak the rich”
Here’s another funny thing: the GOPer con definition of “bipartisanship” is NOT incorporating con ideas or even working with cons to reach a common goal. Nope . . . the con definition is “doing or not doing something based on whether cons it fits the con agenda, pursuing goals in the way cons want, and seeking to achieve the stated goals that cons have identified, and nothing more.” Cons had no interest whatsoever in covering more people with health insurance . . . we know this because, during six years of solid GOPer con control of the House, Senate and White House cons did NOTHING to achieve that goal. So to start with, Obama was pursuing a goal that was anathema to the GOPer cons.
We also know the cons had no interested in extending health insurance coverage because the plan the cons floated would have only covered about 3 million people, less than 10% of the number of people CBO estimates would be helped but Obama’s plan. We also know the cons were not interested in achieving the goal because, frankly, they did NOTHING constructive to achieve it. And many points, the GOPers claims the Dems were “going too fast”, and needed to be slowed down, even though there was a full year of discussion leading up to the final vote. And to top it off, when the Dems DID work with the six GOPers on the health bill (Grassley, et al.), the cons made it clear that they, indeed, intended to make health care “Obama’s Waterloo”, to quote the none-too-bright Jim DeMint. Dems reported GOPer cons demanding changes, then when asked “If we change this, then will you support it?”, cons responded “Oh, of course I can’t support it!” Then why the hell should the Dems put in con ideas if the proponents of those changes STILL won’t support the bill?
But guess what? They DID put in con ideas. The plan was modeled on a plan put together by Romney, for goodness sake! It included an insurance mandate that was first proposed by that noted left wing Communist front group, The Heritage Foundation. The final plan did NOT include nationalization of health insurance, or a partial single payer program, but relied on the existing health insurance companies to write insurance policies. It included tax credits and subsidies to individuals to help them buy the insurance. It even had a positive effect on the deficit projections because it included REDUCTIONS IN EXPENDITURES ON MEDICARE. But even with all those con idea and proposals, cons STILL refused to even consider voting for it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Obama and the Dems can pursue a liberal goal using conservative policy approaches, but that does not mean that cons will even vote for their own ideas being put to action!
David Frum put it right: by failing to even offer a plan to compete with the Dem plan, by failing to commit to supporting a plan that the Dems might alter to address their needs, the GOPer cons ensured that a bill emerged that was less in line with conservative principles than it otherwise might have been. To claim that Dems did not try to get GOPer cons in on the game is simply an effort to rewrite history.
How do you reach a “bipartisan” solution to a problem that the other side does not want solved? You can’t. How do you reach a bipartisan solution when the other side simply refuses to work with you, because they chose to make the issue, the dispute, the controversy, your “Waterloo”? You can’t.
Here’s an episode of Hardball you’ll enjoy
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/26221
Late Breaking News!
Senate Democrats cancel vote on DREAM Act,
meaning the immigration measure is likely dead for the year.
It is unfortunate that the terminology on tax policy has devolved to a Tax The Rich debate.
The businesses that America is depending on, and will more than ever depend on over the next five years to drag the economy out of the ditch, generate from $250,000 to $5,000,000 in revenues. This is where the new jobs will come from, not from the multinationals who have the reach to export jobs to Mexico and China.
Unions don’t care about these small businesses, since their ranks and revenues don’t get affected very much by small business successes. . . . So they’re quite happy to join the rest of the clamouring left screaming, “Tax The Rich.”
If anything, it’s this segment of the economy that should be getting the biggest tax breaks – even a tax holiday.
. . . Meanwhile, . . . . . not much discussion from Washington on cutting Federal spending. Current tracking on Entitlement Spending + Interest Payments are in the aggregate expected to exceed Revenue by 2025. That’s just around the corner. No wonder the grandkids are loosing sleep.
@ B-Rob…any comment that is prefaced with “You Cons” is just more of your Tripe that is strictly your usual talking point drivel that has very little basis in reality but is 100% YOUR Opinionated nonsense.
I am quite frankly not impressed with your opinions.
Braindead, you are guilty of serious projection and hypocrisy. It’s amazing how blind to it you are. That’s what happens when you have zero introspection due to narcissism. Like I said, I have better insight into libreals like you than you do.
OT2 #1 and 11,
1.4% pay raise. Repeal of DADT. Either they are turning their backs on our Nation’s finest or they are purposely trying to wreck the military which is just about the only Federal institution left that is still looked upon favorably by Americans (minus the left).
As for the financial situation, in addition to chopping our elected officials back down to size so they lead by example, we should also go back to the Constitution and fund what’s supposed to be funded. Everything else is an extra and should be prioritized. Begin cutting from there starting with benefits paid to illegal immigrants, people who are chronically on welfare(minus the disabled) or unemployment, Obamacare, and the National Endowment for the Arts. At the same time go after waste in all areas. That alone will go a long way to cutting costs of what is left. Most polls I’ve seen shows the majority of Americans want smaller more efficient government so hopefully the incoming Congress can make good on that. Afterall, they won.
I’ve always liked this interactive chart, which displays each of the various items comprising the total federal budget as blocks sized to show what portion of the total they really represent. Roll your mouse over each, and you’ll get the name of the item and the dollars involved. Click on any portion for an enlargement.
What I find of interest is that budget items people often express the most anger about are just as often fairly negligible contributors to the overall deficit problem. Federal employee pay, for example, shows up under each budget item as “administrative costs”. In the case of civilian federal personnel, you just about need a magnifying glass to find it. Federal employee disability and retirement expenditures is larger–you’ll find it as a pale green block at the bottom left corner of the Income Security section–but it’s dwarfed by the block that represents payments to Social Security retirees. Budgets for the largest regulatory agencies are so small a part of the whole that it takes some patient hunting through tiny blocks to even find them.
The point is this: Cutting spending to a degree that would actually make a significant dent in the deficit simply can’t be accomplished by cutting those things partisan politicians like to keep public attention focused on. It’s been easy to stir people up about earmarks, for example, but the truth is that as a percentage of the entire budget problem they hardly matter. What matters the most is what we want to talk about the least: National Defense costs, Social Security, Medicare, Health–and, of course, that growing indicator of our past unwillingness to behave responsibly: Net Interest.
Any serious discussion about spending cuts should probably begin with a close examination of the chart. Before you solve a problem, you’ve first got to have a clear idea what the problem really is.
This is another HUGE Scam…
Tax Bill to Extend Ethanol Subsidy
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND1209101.aspx
If not for Taxpayer Subsidy, NO Serious Investor would throw a dime at Ethanol from Corn. This Ethanol Subsidy needs to Go Away!
If we severely cut government waste, red tape and all unproductive government spending that hinders job creation we would be going a long way toward fiscal responsibility.
If we ignore the ”victim’s groups” and focus on the really needy instead of adding in all of the imaginary needy, we would also save tons of taxpayer money.
If we cut all but one of every duplicate federal programs we would save in many ways.
If we repeal ObamaCare we will be money ahead in every part of the economy plus the added certainty would encourage hiring in the private sector.
And. yes, lots of subsidies should go away.
If a business (or artist or NPR) is worthwhile it can find backers/customers without government handouts.
@ Old Trooper 2, #27:
My thinking has gone back and forth on ethanol. (In reference to the fuel ethanol subsidy issue, not Scotch.)
Ethanol subsidies certainly aren’t cost efficient, and producing grain-based ethanol isn’t really energy efficient. Having developed an ethanol infrastructure might not seem so stupid in retrospect, however, if our foreign petroleum supply chain is suddenly interrupted by a Middle Eastern war, if foreign cartels suddenly decide to cut us off, or if global prices suddenly spike as the global economy picks up some momentum. I also figure an existing ethanol infrastructure will put us well ahead in the game when cellulosic ethanol production eventually becomes feasible.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to keep putting some chips down on ethanol. At least the subsidies are staying within our own economy–certainly more than can be said for money spent on foreign oil.
@Old Trooper 2:
It’s even worse when considering what we have:
B-Rob
Well B-Rob, that’s because “Cons” don’t believe the federal gumint is the end-all, be-all answer to the country’s problems. For the most part, “Cons” believe the federal gumint is the reason form most of the country’s problems. Why would we want government run healthcare when we don’t believe government is the answer?
You dont’ reach bipartisan agreements when you don’t believe the government has a role to play.
@ Aqua, #31:
I don’t get a vote concerning the activities of the megaliths of corporate America, which are primarily concerned with furthering their own advantage and interests. I do get to vote in government, which has been empowered to represent the people’s interests. What besides government is there to play that role?
My concern is that government is increasingly under the influence of the very forces that it’s intended to counterbalance.
Shocked and stunned… really I am. You mean to tell me that the Founding Fathers structured this republic of ours so that the “government” would “counterbalance” the private sector business???
Well, when you come from this lack of understanding of the Constitution and our history, there’s not much we can do for you, Greg. Then again, ya never did let us know just how much of a wealth “gap” was acceptable to you.
@ Greg
The federal government Greg. We have a constitution that limits the powers of the federal government. Does this sound familiar? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
By the way, you most certainly can have a vote concerning the activities of the megaliths of corporate America. By the stock and vote. The more stock you own, the more weight your vote carries.
But I will agree with you on one thing, our government is increasingly under the influence of the very forces it is intended to counterbalance. But that is what happens when you have a central power. Our form of government was never intended to have that much power concentrated in one place. The most important election for Americans should be their local elections.
@ MataHarley, #34:
They certainly do seem to have been very much concerned with matters of balance, and with the protection of the rights of individuals against too much centralized power. They specifically empowered the federal government to regulate interstate and international commerce. To the extent that corporate activity involves interstate or international commerce, it’s the federal government’s to regulate.
So sorry, Greg… nice revisionist view of history of the commerce clause, as it was originally intended. Perhaps this little diddy from the Wm & Mary Bill of Rights Journal on it’s history may give you some better insight. Specifically, it was a phrase used for specific mercantilist proposals that were related to deep-water shipping and foreign trade. It’s purpose was to make sure that foreign traders were not giving favored treatment to their pet US trading partners, and deal with imposition of tariffs. In other words, it’s original intent was to protect US businesses *from* foreign trading inequities… not to act as a “counterbalance” (more like dead weight…) to our own domestic businesses.
That Congress has taken this power within their authority to tax, and blown it into the monster it has become, is another story. But, as I said, if you understood the history of commerce in it’s original founding intent, you’d know that.
It is my greatest hope that Congress will be put into their places by SCOTUS when O’healthcare eventually worms it’s way to the High Court.
Oh yes, I might add that the Hamiltonian/Federalist view was it was meant to make sure that the individual states were not stifling commerce with their power. So again, the only “counterbalance” there was against intrusive state regulations that hampered businesses thriving.
Up to a point Greg. The Commerce Clause WAS NOT meant to be a back door way for the fed govt. to grab power. If it was, the Founding Fathers would never have bothered with the rest of the Constituition.
Mata, when Greg is presented with a question he cannot or will not answer, he launches his next attack.
@ MataHarley, and anyone else who cares to comment:
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about a private entity–let’s say a large corporation, or a single individual–becoming so wealthy and so powerful that it can diminish the freedom and range of choices of most other individual citizens, even though nothing is being done that the government has any specific constitutional power to restrict?
And a follow-up question: What if such a trend goes unchecked by government, until virtually all property and resources finally come to be shared among and controlled by a relatively small number of such powerful persons and corporations? Where are we then?
For me, these are central questions. If we go by a strictly literalist interpretation of the Constitution, with no effort to read in the original intent, it seems to fall silent. Maybe a lot of our disagreements revolve around how we think about that problem.
Greg, I do not assess freedom, our Constitution and legalities by how I “feel”. Apparently, you do. Which is why you can’t answer my question of when is that threshhold of wealth “gap” acceptable to you. Why? Because once you agree to grant authority to someone in government to determine that threshhold, it may not only *not* match what you “feel”, but can change at government’s whim.
Nope, nope and more nopes.
So you can “feel” that the wealth gap is more than you emotionally believe is right. But you also can’t justify allowing government to determine regulations by the way you “feel”.
Ultimately, unless any single POTUS declares him/her self a dictator for life, and can coerce an entire US military, along with the National Guard to fight against every armed US citizen, there is no “unchecked” trend in our country. We have elections where we can boot the bums out, and replace them with (probably…) new bums. Sometimes it may take many election cycles and growing disturbing trends to unite a people who have lived divided in our political beliefs since our conception. And sometimes that sneaky growth of power that’s been going on for six decades has to manifest it’s flaws (like realization that the debt incurred by the social welfare programs is not only unsustainable, but endangering our very existence) before many voters rail against their public education indoctrination, and say “no more”. But it’s happened thoughout our history, and can most certainly happen again… and is.
It’s just not going your way because voters are ceasing to vote on what “feels” right, and what economic reality is actually dictating.
You dance in dangerous and diametrically opposed waters with the influence that corporations and/or business have in Washington. Because industry associations, unions and other representatives of groups of people (whether shareholders or industry workers) have the same power and influence. What did you suggest… that only major associations and unions have the power to lobby and influence, while corporations who represent cross sections of America in stock and pension holders do not? Are we making a list, and checking it twice with you to see who you “feel” should have some influence?
Individuals only hold a certain amount of sway with the elite and reality disconnected elected ones. If you are the average hotel maid or janitor, you probably have great faith and support your SEIU union because they become your voice where… if you walk the halls of Congress yourself… you’d normally be invisible.
And speaking of… why is it you love to rail against corporations, and not the unions, Greg? At least a corporation manufactures and markets something. A union just steals dues to be the industry mouthpiece, and manufacture only more regulations.
Personally, I’ll take the corporations.
And this on it’s own…
Yet it is you who makes no effort to find the original intent. But, if you read enough SCOTUS opinions, you will find the court does. For the revisionist, living Constitution High Court appointee, they think like you. For those that are strict constructionists, they return to original intent. Which is why the balance of the court is very important. Enough “Obama’s” and retirees from the High Court, and any original intent from the Founders goes overboard.
@ Greg
Greg, you are so wrapped up with government being the federal government that you can’t see anything else. What happened to the powers of the States? States have the power to deal with their own problems if the feds would stay out of it.
And who is so rich they are too powerful? Is George Soros too rich and powerful? He uses his wealth to influence elections for the left. But I never hear the left talk about how evil rich he is. What about GE? They are pretty leftist and powerful. Send thousands and thousands of jobs overseas, never a peep from the left. So, are only conservative rich people and corporations too powerful.
Greg #37,
As an example, if there was a corporation that took over 16% percent of our GDP, forced us to buy a product we don’t want to purchase, made healthcare decisions for us, regulated the internet, regulated the media sources that don’t promote their agenda, seized control of roughly 1/3 of our domestically owned automobile industry, seized control of the majority of the mortgage industry, took money from one segment of society and redistributed it to another, and seized control of the largest insurance agency in the country? I would not like it all.
As to the second question, if that trend went unchecked, I’d say we’d be living in pretty much a totaltarian society.
How did I miss this gem?
First of all, Billy Bob, we know you’re math challenged, but over 47% of voters did NOT vote for Obama. Now perhaps you’re used to Clinton success numbers, in the 30 percentile. But that is not an “overwhelming mandate”. See Reagan landslide, if you want to get a little closer.
Secondly, Obama got an overwhelmingly strong slap in the face, along with his crony Congress just last month. Apparently the honeymoon of Greek columns and soaring rhetoric has worn off in the first half of “duh one’s” reign. And I’d call the midterms not only a more recent “mandate”, but definitely overwhelming.
@ Mata
Thanks Mata, when I read one of Greg’s posts I have so much I want to say because his way of thinking is so completely alien to my own that I can’t get the words out. Part of me believes he may actually be helped, but I have yet to see anyone sway his opinion even when the facts are staring him right in the face. When faced with the facts, he changes direction so he won’t have to deal with them. His belief that people that have more should be forced to give to people that have less drives his opinions. I’ll prove this by betting that he won’t have an answer for Soros or the unions.
@Greg – The board of directors chooses the CEO of a corporation. The shareholders of a corporation elect the board of directors. Unions intimidate their members into voting for their leaders. Which one is better?
Lastly, a State has the right to regulate and tax a business right into the ground if it so chooses. Just look at California. That is the right of a State. If a corporation does not like doing business in a State, it can move to another State.
The rights granted to a State are listed in a State’s constitution. The people of a State can change their constitution as they see fit. If a State sees the way another State is doing something better, a State may adopt those practices and try to improve on them. That is the way our nation is supposed to work. 50 individual proving grounds, not one centralized Leviathan.
Aqua, just because Greg doesn’t foam at the mouth like most lefties here, don’t think he is a moderate. He simply understands he is more likely to convince the more gullible of his beliefs by displaying his “level headedness”. As even you have seen, he cannot be convinced no matter what proof he is provided with. You have also witnessed how he repeatedly launches another attack rather than continue a losing point. Like I have said, Greg is not a moderate.
Braindead-rob, obama won a MAJORITY of voters and it was hardly overwhelming. It should also be noted that it wasn’t a 100% turnout. Overwhelming mandate? Not even close. Proof of this was seen in the recent mid-terms. I know loony leftists like yourself insist a wave of elderly white people swept them out of office. Too bad the reported demographics of the voters prove otherwise. You see, they wanted the obama who pretended not to be what some of us knew him to be. When he showed the people that he was a socialist, they took steps to stop him and his agenda. He sold America a lie, and now it’s coming back to haunt him. If he had truly won an overwhelming mandate then the dems would still control the House.
You’re right, Aqua. Greg’s thinking is foreign to many a Constitutional conservative. But that’s what makes up a good portion of this nation… people driven to political voting based on emotions and what they “feel” is right, instead of the base concepts of our founding. For every emotional vote cast, another intrusive regulation or tort is born.
The feds have been increasing their power and running over the states for decades now. The base idea was feds power was limited, and that each state was to determine their own so that people had a choice of which conditions, rules and regulations to live under. To one like Greg, the states rights seem incidental, since he believes the bulk of everything begins at the federal level.
It’s a topsy turvy view of our Constitutional history, and we’ll just have to blame the Ayers “social justice” curriculum that has been increasingly dominate in our public school system since the 60s. Since we can’t undo the indoctrination damage quickly, or easily, we can only point out the blatant flaws that have arisen due to implementation of a “social justice” agenda.
As I often say, you cannot mandate charity, nor goodwill into the heart of mankind. Now, I will add this, after observing the increased class warfare since the Zero’s crowning…. with mandates, you certainly can drive goodwill and charity OUT of the hearts of mankind.
MATA; YOU POINTED OUT ANOTHER GOOD ONE AT THE END; IF I might add that he is not closing the border well that make him less than charitable for the a americans which have to pay more tax and have to strugle to make their way to a better living, a better future for their children on a count of his selfish refusal to deal with the border, he does’nt give a …about AMERICA FOR AMERICANS.
This is exactly right, only it’s no accident. Obama, just like Harry Reid is going for the spanish speaking vote, by supporting illegal Mexicans and illegal immigration, as opposed to the American worker they are displacing.
This approach was the only reason Reid barely won in Nevada, and it will make a difference in some of the SW states, I am afraid. Get ready for more pandering and more working against the USA.
Point: We should also remember that the “lame duck” Republican leadership who helped craft this deal, and it stinks with the lingering stench of the Bush era Republican leadership.
The Tea Party is watching both sides, and I suspect they are not at all impressed with this expensive ghost-of-stimulus-pack-past compromise.