Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 158
  1. #31


    AUTaxMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,937
    Country
    Card Cash
    200.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    1
    Transferred Feedback
    Bench (376)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    But Mr. Obama has to put a stop to that, and he's not doing it. He should be governing for his legacy. Why should he have to capitulate to people like Pelosi and Reid? Democrats as a whole are looking at the election as a ringing endorsement of the job their doing, and they're flat out wrong to do that. I was hoping Mr. Obama was above that fracas, but right now he isn't.

    In case you couldn't tell, I'm quite angry about all this.
    You voted for the guy. This is the way he has been acting for 4 years. Why did you think he would do anything different once he was re-elected?
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    31/99 National Treasures RCs

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by AUTaxMan View Post
    You voted for the guy. This is the way he has been acting for 4 years. Why did you think he would do anything different once he was re-elected?
    This isn't the way he's been acting for four years. He hasn't had the gravitas in Washington to act this way. There were many times during his first term that he was downright conciliatory, like he was when he lost the public option in Obamacare. It's exactly like I said, when you govern without the possibility of re-election, you either govern for ideology or legacy. I was quite confident that he would govern for legacy, and this is just an awful start towards that.

    He would go a long way to establish a "fiscal cliff commission" a la Simpson-Bowles, and put Mitt Romney in there. Mitt's reportedly not going to run for another office, so he has nothing to lose by working with Democrats. Plus, Mitt's not a dumb guy, he could help out here.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  3. #33


    AUTaxMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,937
    Country
    Card Cash
    200.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    1
    Transferred Feedback
    Bench (376)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    This isn't the way he's been acting for four years. He hasn't had the gravitas in Washington to act this way. There were many times during his first term that he was downright conciliatory, like he was when he lost the public option in Obamacare. It's exactly like I said, when you govern without the possibility of re-election, you either govern for ideology or legacy. I was quite confident that he would govern for legacy, and this is just an awful start towards that.

    He would go a long way to establish a "fiscal cliff commission" a la Simpson-Bowles, and put Mitt Romney in there. Mitt's reportedly not going to run for another office, so he has nothing to lose by working with Democrats. Plus, Mitt's not a dumb guy, he could help out here.
    Your miscalculation is that Obama is that ideologue of all ideologues. The next time he takes a practical approach to anything of import will be the first.

    For the record, he lost the public option in negotiations within his own party, not with the republicans, who were wholly against the Obamacare boondoggle.

    Did you see where Geithner embarrassed himself in front of Congress yesterday, as he has no concrete plan for anything close to resembling a "balanced approach"? It is all tax hikes now and a false promise to make unspecified cuts later.
    Last edited by AUTaxMan; 11-30-2012 at 04:51 PM.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    31/99 National Treasures RCs

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by AUTaxMan View Post
    Your miscalculation is that Obama is that ideologue of all ideologues. The next time he takes a practical approach to anything of import will be the first.

    For the record, he lost the public option in negotiations within his own party, not with the republicans, who were wholly against the Obamacare boondoggle.

    Did you see where Geithner embarrassed himself in front of Congress yesterday, as he has no concrete plan for anything close to resembling a "balanced approach"? It is all tax hikes now and a false promise to make unspecified cuts later.
    Geithner's "plan" was an utter joke. The rumor going around is that Erskine Bowles may be the new Treasury Secretary. Given that he's one of the few Democrats who seem to be willing to cut anything right now, it'd be a good move.

    It's been proven by other countries time and time again that the 3:1 cuts to tax increase ratio works over the long-term. Geithner apparently wants to do the exact opposite. I'm just totally miffed at all this.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  5. #35


    AUTaxMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,937
    Country
    Card Cash
    200.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    1
    Transferred Feedback
    Bench (376)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    Geithner's "plan" was an utter joke. The rumor going around is that Erskine Bowles may be the new Treasury Secretary. Given that he's one of the few Democrats who seem to be willing to cut anything right now, it'd be a good move.

    It's been proven by other countries time and time again that the 3:1 cuts to tax increase ratio works over the long-term. Geithner apparently wants to do the exact opposite. I'm just totally miffed at all this.
    I'm miffed that you're miffed. This is exactly what I expected.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    31/99 National Treasures RCs

  6. #36


    AUTaxMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,937
    Country
    Card Cash
    200.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    1
    Transferred Feedback
    Bench (376)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Some awesome stuff in here:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AT02C20121130

    Dems want $50 bn new stimulus spending, unilateral and permanent power for Obama to raise the debt limit.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    31/99 National Treasures RCs

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by AUTaxMan View Post
    I'm miffed that you're miffed. This is exactly what I expected.
    Actually, you anticipated the Dick Morris Romney Landslide theory. And this isn't how it started the days after election day. I think a day or two after he got re-elected, Obama called Erskine Bowles and said that he's ready to consider implementing some of their recommendations. Now he backtracks like this? Rather than capitulating to Republicans, he's capitulating to the far left of his party. I like Mr. O and generally think that he has some sensibility to him. Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, Schumer and the liberal sect of the Democrats don't seem to.

    I can say with some level of confidence that if Democrats continue down this path of "our way or the highway", in a number of years they'll be faced with the same challenges currently facing Republicans, with the party beginning to break into factions.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by AUTaxMan View Post
    Some awesome stuff in here:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AT02C20121130

    Dems want $50 bn new stimulus spending, unilateral and permanent power for Obama to raise the debt limit.
    I'm totally on board with you here. It's a joke, an absolute joke. I'm a Democrat and I'm insulted by it.
    Blog: Hidden Content
    Steven Jackson Collection- 30 RCs, 160 #D, 182 GU/Patch, 23 AU, 8 Au/Jsy, Three 1/1
    Jermaine Gresham: 29 RCs, 26 #D, 30 GU/Patch, 25 AU, 29 Au/Jsy
    Steelers: 74 #D, 37 GU/Patch, 22 AU, 6 AU/GU
    Josh Johnson: 16 RCs, 9 #D, 17 Autos

  9. #39


    AUTaxMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,937
    Country
    Card Cash
    200.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    1
    Transferred Feedback
    Bench (376)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by pghin08 View Post
    Actually, you anticipated the Dick Morris Romney Landslide theory. And this isn't how it started the days after election day. I think a day or two after he got re-elected, Obama called Erskine Bowles and said that he's ready to consider implementing some of their recommendations. Now he backtracks like this? Rather than capitulating to Republicans, he's capitulating to the far left of his party. I like Mr. O and generally think that he has some sensibility to him. Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, Schumer and the liberal sect of the Democrats don't seem to.

    I can say with some level of confidence that if Democrats continue down this path of "our way or the highway", in a number of years they'll be faced with the same challenges currently facing Republicans, with the party beginning to break into factions.
    I did anticipate the landslide, and was wrong, but that is irrelevant to this issue. What you don't seem to get is that Obama IS the far left of his party. Some claim that isn't how he governed in his first term, and that may be, but now that he has nothing to lose, he can be himself. He is a far-left radical who is more concerned with achieving Utopian ideals of wealth redistribution and social justice than addressing practical solutions to the problems our nation faces.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    31/99 National Treasures RCs

  10. #40
    the word social justice should mean something far different than what it is used for. I cannot stand the idea of social justice meaning take from those who have earned it and give to those that haven't. this is far different than helping the needy. the needy has went from people who are in need, to people who do nothing about their needs.

    heard about Buffets 30% tax rate, but with no deductions. I find it sickening we think it is ok to take a 1/3 of someone's money because they have more of it.
    Jay Shrewsbury
    Hidden Content

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •