Hope and Change my ass, right?
  With the most recent news on Obama's concession to republican demands [its political terrorism if you ask me] I ask you this; Is it time to simply stop hoping?  The Right[wrong] are only emboldened, and I can't stand to listen to the idiocy of their reasoning when perpetrating their agenda.  I'm getting sick of it, and it seems like Obama's losing his balls~ don't get me wrong, I understand he's in a tough spot, but shit, there's got to be a better way to go about this.  Your thoughts?

Views: 77

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And whats more, if he did flip out there on the repubs, and show some GIANT BALLS, he would probably shock them into cooperation. sure you'd have your whiners... but most would probably fall in line. they are like petulant children, taking whatever they can get and pushing the limits~ they don't need an adult to come over and talk to them; They need a good ASS WHOOPIN to put them in their place
Seriously. Although I am against literal ass whooping of children, I am very much in favor of a figurative political ass whooping of republicans!
LOL! corrupt, money-hungry, hateful, elitist, power-hungry, two-faced, hypocritical thieves.

Exactly, W was able to push through his (unconscionable) agenda with less of a majority than we currently have. And being only elected by the supreme court and not the people. What kind of a mandate does Obama need? What, he needs to be fillibuster proof now? I'm sorry Obama, you can't have everything you want. He showed no leadership on tough issues. It's one thing if it really was the Republicans blocking everything, but he never came out and said anything publicly to shame them into capitulating. He simply played along which means he either is misguided or he's not on our side to begin with.

I think he thought the progressives would stick with him no matter what and he keeps trying to "woo" more independents and repubs. But he doesn't need to! Which goes back to why I think he may have changed his politics once he got in the oval office. He became the establishment so no need to rail against it anymore.
I don't remember primaries being run against the current president.
Ted Kennedy ran against President Carter. Here are some other examples:
http://race42008.com/2009/09/04/a-brief-history-of-presidential-pri...

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/sevendays/25558...

Here is a poll asking people if we should run a primary against Obama:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-we-have-another-democr...
The times also has a front page article talking about how pissed off the left is with him~ there too are rumblings of a primary run. mostly likely it wont happen 1.5 years from now, that is if he gets his act together....
They happen but they usually amount to nothing. It's like running a third party -- except inside an established party.
I'm still amazed that they didn't force a vote on this before the mid terms. It's outrageous that the Republicans were threatening to hold up middle class tax cuts, due to the tax cuts not being extended to people making over 250k. I'm sorry, but if you are making over 250k, you don't deserve a break right now. People are ending up homeless because of the mess that the over 250k caused on the regular people. It's also extremely disingenuous that the Republicans are screaming deficit reduction while wanting to pass a measure that COSTS us a whole ton of money. If the deficit issue is to be addressed, it can not be done through spending cuts alone. This latest action really shows who the Republicans are for. I've seen it for quite some time now, but for some reason most people don't and they eat their message up.

I'm also really really disappointed with Obama. I think he has shown that he fails to lead on issues on a consistent basis and is prone to capitulation. I thought he was going to go into Washington to remove the entrenched special interests and lobbyist culture. How naive I was.
yeah, I like summing up the republican argument with a little math.

Issues~ Tax cuts for the middle class; Tax cuts for the wealthy; Extending unemployment benefits

No one argues over the tax cuts for the middle class, so take those out; the Republican issue stands as such~ Yes on taxcuts for the wealthy, No on unemployment benefit continuation~ Essentially a big "fuck you" to anyone who isn't wealthy enough to ride this recession out~ they would screw the middleclass (by letting all cuts expire) before they would let the taxes be raised on those who could afford it!

Not only that, but they bitch about Unemployment by saying "Who is going to pay for this? its another 120 billion dollar entitlement program!" while at the same time pushing unnecessary Tax cuts on the wealthy to a tune of 700 BILLION DOLLARS. That would pay for it!!!

oh, but that would be redistribution of wealth, and hence, socialism.

FUCK
Not to mention this whole Wealthy tax cut is justified by saying it will promote job growth, which is bullshit because
A. they have already been in place~ if people were going to invest that money, they would have done so; the effects would not be seen, as there would be no change fiscally.
B. Individuals do not create jobs, companies do. if it was a corporate tax break I might listen, but what you take home from your business is not going to be reinvested, fuckin morons. they used Lebron James as an example for the thousands and thousands of dollars that would have been taken in, which won't be now. SO, IS LEBRON JAMES GOING TO CREATE SOME JOBS WITH THAT SAVINGS???
C. That money that would be recovered by taxing the wealthy could go a long way to reducing the deficit; the republicans supposed goal. so why aren't they the ones fighting for it? why are they the ones crying about "class warfare?" While democrats have principals, but are too feeble to support them constantly, republicans have NO principals, and fight for whatever legislation is in their best interest.
The failure of trickle down economics starts at fundamental Macroeconomics and ends at its implementation.

Just some basic principles from macroecon: Savings is an economic loss. People who already have enough money to spend are going to put this extra money into savings.

Banks who are supposed to put those savings back into the economy through loans aren't.

Also, it has never been the case that supply has lead demand. Supply always responds to demand. Why would anyone hire anyone else to make anything if the demand doesn't exist to buy that thing?

How is it even supposed to stimulate the economy? It's money going to the people likely to spend the least amount of it. Give it to the desperately poor who have no choice but to spend it. All this is doing is encouraging more loss.
The biggest single contributor to the debt between 2001 and 2008 was the Bush tax cuts. 50% of the benefit went to 1% of the population. $3Trillion in lost revenue make it bigger than the war during that period. And how well was our economy doing at the end of that ride? Trickle down my ass.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service