02 Apr 13
Bill Clinton was not afraid of confrontation when a weakened President Bill Clinton faced off against determined Republicans which led to the government shutdown of 1995-1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996
House Republicans today are in a weaker bargaining position than the Republicans of 1995, because they do not also control the Senate. In 2010 the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate yet Obama didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire and extended them.
Despite Obama's promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire he went back on his word and extended them. Is the real reason that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because he realized the Republican were right and letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be bad for the economy?
02 Apr 13
1 edit
First of all he didn't promise to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. He wanted to only let the top 2% expire, which he can't do without legislation from Congress. Congressional Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts on the middle class if the rich can't get theirs as well.
Obama afraid of confrontation?
In the second clip Obama confronts the Republican caucus by himself and owns them pretty handily.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe first you tube link you posted is merely Obama refusing to be interrupted by a heckling reporter and nothing to do with confronting republicans.
First of all he didn't promise to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. He wanted to only let the top 2% expire, which he can't do without legislation from Congress. Congressional Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts on the middle class if the rich can't get theirs as well.
Obama afraid of confrontation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v ...[text shortened]... nd clip Obama confronts the Republican caucus by himself and owns them pretty handily.
The second link doesn't even start out with Obama. Are you sure you posted the right link?
Why was a democrat controlled congress unable to give Obama the legislation that he wanted?
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou said afraid of confrontation, which he clearly is not.
The first you tube link you posted is merely Obama refusing to be interrupted by a heckling reporter and nothing to do with confronting republicans.
The second link doesn't even start out with Obama. Are you sure you posted the right link?
Why was a democrat controlled congress unable to give Obama the legislation that he wanted?
The second link is absolutely the right link. Obama invited the Republican caucus to have an open discussion with him to hash out their differences a few months after he took office. He confronted a whole room of Republicans on by himself and pretty much owned them. That particular YouTube video is only Part 1 of 7. I know you're only used to digesting sound bites, so it's up to you if you want to watch the whole thing.
The Republicans in the Senate have been filibustering bills at an unprecedented rate. It used to be the use of the filibuster by the minority party was reserved for only the most staunch opposition. But Senate Republicans have turned it into a political circus, essentially requiring any meaningful bill to pass with 60 votes.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo why don't democrats filibuster in the tradition of Huey Long anymore? Are they afraid they will be assassinated?
You said afraid of confrontation, which he clearly is not.
The second link is absolutely the right link. Obama invited the Republican caucus to have an open discussion with him to hash out their differences a few months after he took office. He confronted a whole room of Republicans on by himself and pretty much owned them. That particu ...[text shortened]... to a political circus, essentially requiring any meaningful bill to pass with 60 votes.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Huey_Long_Filibusters.htm
02 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainMaybe they are afraid that the amount of fluoride they are exposed to will be increased by bipartisan [not "bipartisan" in a good way, though] civil servants?
So why don't democrats filibuster in the tradition of Huey Long anymore? Are they afraid they will be assassinated?
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by Metal Brain"Despite Obama's promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire he went back on his word and extended them. Is the real reason that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because he realized the Republican were right and letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be bad for the economy?"
Bill Clinton was not afraid of confrontation when a weakened President Bill Clinton faced off against determined Republicans which led to the government shutdown of 1995-1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996
House Republicans today are in a weaker bargaining position than the Republicans of 19 ...[text shortened]... d the Republican were right and letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be bad for the economy?
He said as much at the time. The real reason, is that letting them expire would have exposed the lie that they were "for the rich", as everyone down to EITC people would have got substantial tax increases, and seen the "for the rich" lie.
Note that he didn't hesitate, to raise the upper marginal rates, and still leave the majority of the Bush tax rates in tact, last time around. This didn't expose the original lie of partisans.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperObama is clever about picking fights he thinks will be winners with his constituencies. Raising everyone's taxes would not have enhanced his popularity, regardless of what it did for the economy.
First of all he didn't promise to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. He wanted to only let the top 2% expire, which he can't do without legislation from Congress. Congressional Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts on the middle class if the rich can't get theirs as well.
Obama afraid of confrontation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v ...[text shortened]... nd clip Obama confronts the Republican caucus by himself and owns them pretty handily.
He didn't hesitate to raise the upper tax rates, and leave the rest intact. There aren't that many rich people to worry about. And not enough to make that much of a difference in the budget deficit either. He still didn't roll back the Bush cuts on the middle class on down.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignNot making a difference for the budget deficit? You of all people should know that the top 1% incomes pay 37% (2009 figures) of total federal income taxes!
Obama is clever about picking fights he thinks will be winners with his constituencies. Raising everyone's taxes would not have enhanced his popularity, regardless of what it did for the economy.
He didn't hesitate to raise the upper tax rates, and leave the rest intact. There aren't that many rich people to worry about. And not enough to make that ...[text shortened]... budget deficit either. He still didn't roll back the Bush cuts on the middle class on down.
02 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignWait, you mean politicians focus on issues the voters care about? Say it ain't so!
Obama is clever about picking fights he thinks will be winners with his constituencies. Raising everyone's taxes would not have enhanced his popularity, regardless of what it did for the economy.
He didn't hesitate to raise the upper tax rates, and leave the rest intact. There aren't that many rich people to worry about. And not enough to make that ...[text shortened]... budget deficit either. He still didn't roll back the Bush cuts on the middle class on down.
Unfortunately Obama was unable to raise the upper taxes, although I can see that happening soon. If you think it won't make a difference in the budget deficit you are clueless. The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than more than half the country combined. Simply reverting the top tax bracket back to what it was in the '90s (a meager +4% ) would generate tens of millions in tax revenue annually.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, and that confirms that a 3% increase in the top marginal rate is not a serious attempt at budget balancing. The majority of that taxable income is at below the top marginal rate. And that top 1% is an incredibly small number of people.
Not making a difference for the budget deficit? You of all people should know that the top 1% incomes pay 37% (2009 figures) of total federal income taxes!
Obama is a consummate populist.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHe just did raise the upper marginal rate.
Wait, you mean politicians focus on issues the voters care about? Say it ain't so!
Unfortunately Obama was unable to raise the upper taxes, although I can see that happening soon. If you think it won't make a difference in the budget deficit you are clueless. The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than more than half the country [i]combined ...[text shortened]... t it was in the '90s (a meager +4% ) would generate tens of millions in tax revenue annually.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-raise-taxes_n_2395559.html
I'll have to look for that, as I haven't seen it in the headlines. Not doubting you on this one, but do you have a link?
Additionally, he let his own payroll tax holiday expire which was a tax hike on everyone.
In the meantime the out of control debt isn't addressed, just kicked down the road, and continued borrowing doesn't create jobs, and the guaranteed effect is that price increases due to inflating the money, takes actual purchasing power from every American, from the poorest to the richest. Of course it is the ultimate flat tax, and one that nobody votes on.