Commentary on what Obama needs to do

[lothar]

You don't understad this much. Presidents improve their support by leading the people - for better or worse.

Bush started out as an insecure president who peple said couldn 't dare do govern in any way but pandering to the center, avoiding going to the right and alienating them after a very close election he really lost, and his ratings were low and declining as people said what is he about and predicted a bad loss for re-election - but with 9/11 and his hard turn to the right, his ratings went way up. They eventually declined because they were such bad policies, but the point is they went up as he led away from the center. Same with Reagan.

FDR on the other side didn't have high ratings by governing to the center but by leading the people left.

Few 'great presidents' are remembered for pandering to the other side, the middle. You are simply making the mistake of wanting the policies you agree with to be the ones he should do, so you say this.

If Obama could pass a really big medical reform - like medicare for all, far more left than the current one - he'd get big political points, it terrifies Republicans, hence their blocking everything desparately.

You didn't understand the commentary. People want the president to do what the government is for - rotect them not only from the government itself, the right-wing bogeyman, but powerful private tyranny.

Oh, and Lothar, on who has a clue about how for the DNC to win, you attack me with a comparison to Howard Dean, saying he can't win.

Who was the chairman of the DNC who led the Democrats back to power after a Republican decade? I'd say you are the one we're luck is not the DNC chair.

Bush had a high popularity rating ONLY because of 9/11 and nothing else.
It wasn't because he shifted away from the center to the extreme right.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, and Bill Clinton are remembered perfectly fine and they were all centrists of their respective political parties.

Last time I checked, Howard Dean didn't win the presidency OR Democratic nomination in 2004.
The Democrats who won in 2008 were either centrists or conservative Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008
The only liberal on that list is Al Franken and possibly Jeff Merkley. Everyone else who gained a previous GOP seat in 2008 is either a centrist or a conservative Democrat.

You're also forgetting one important fact.
The US Senate is not based on population, unlike the US House.
Liberals are only guaranteed to win ~20 seats. Everyone else who wins the remaining seats will either be a centrist or a conservative Democrat.
If the DNC decides to follow your political strategy of shifting to the extreme left as you suggested, there won't ever be any Democrat elected in the Senate from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. All the current centrist and conservative Democrats in Nebraska, Louisana, Indiana, New Hampshire, Virginia, Arkansas, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida would lose their jobs to Republicans.

Lothar's list of centrists and conservative Senate Democrats:
Max Baucus
Kent Conrad
Bob Casey
and everyone else on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Dems_Working_Group)

Of course knowing you, you'd consider them all to be corporatists.

 

[Ozoned]

Bush had a high popularity rating ONLY because of 9/11 and nothing else.
.

I am pretty sure that everybody was buzzed about the tax cuts. They were wildly popular to everyone,,,,,except for craig. I bet he didn't give his back.

 

[lothar]

I am pretty sure that everybody was buzzed about the tax cuts. They were wildly popular to everyone,,,,,except for craig. I bet he didn't give his back.

I don't remember much people being buzzed by the Bush taxcuts.
I didn't support them either because they increased the deficit.

 

[Patranus]

I don't remember much people being buzzed by the Bush taxcuts.
I didn't support them either because they increased the deficit.

Tax cuts do not increase the deficit.

(That being said, revenues to the IRS actually increased)

 

[lothar]

Tax cuts do not increase the deficit.

(That being said, revenues to the IRS actually increased)

They do when you don't have a budget surplus to pay for them and have to use Chinese credit cards or print money at the FED.

Revenues increased but by how much?
If it's not up to the $1.6 trillion price tag PLUS interest, then it's not worth it.

You're supposed to cut gov't spending, then cut taxes. You're not supposed to cut taxes, then increase spending which is fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Double Trouble]

They do when you don't have a budget surplus to pay for them and have to use Chinese credit cards or print money at the FED.

Revenues increased but by how much?
If it's not up to the $1.6 trillion price tag PLUS interest, then it's not worth it.

You're supposed to cut gov't spending, then cut taxes. You're not supposed to cut taxes, then increase spending which is fiscally irresponsible.

:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Tax cuts do not increase the deficit.

(That being said, revenues to the IRS actually increased)

1. Yes, they do. Tax cutes return 22% of the cut amont in taxes. That's a78% decrease in taxe revenue.

2. Revenue increases to the IRS as revenues grow. The rich have skyrocketed their share of income.

 

[Patranus]

They do when you don't have a budget surplus to pay for them and have to use Chinese credit cards or print money at the FED.

Revenues increased but by how much?
If it's not up to the $1.6 trillion price tag PLUS interest, then it's not worth it.

You're supposed to cut gov't spending, then cut taxes. You're not supposed to cut taxes, then increase spending which is fiscally irresponsible.

Again, tax cuts do not "cost money" nor do they "cause a deficit".

Spending causes deficits not tax cuts.

 

[PJABBER]

You know what would stimulate the economy?

Obama taking back all but the tax credit portion of the $787 billion he gave away in a paroxysm of political favoritism and which did nothing to stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately, we don't get do-overs. All we can do is try to stop the maniacal spending. November can't get here fast enough.

 

[Craig234]

You know what would stimulate the economy?

Obama taking back all but the tax credit portion of the $787 billion he gave away in a paroxysm of political favoritism and which did nothing to stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately, we don't get do-overs. All we can do is try to stop the maniacal spending. November can't get here fast enough.

Yes, the stimulus did nothing, which is why the great depression and the crash of the economy happened as discussed, and stocks plummeted in value during 2009. More dishonesty.

 

[Craig234]

Again, tax cuts do not "cost money" nor do they "cause a deficit".

Spending causes deficits not tax cuts.

Tax cuts do not increase the deficit.

(That being said, revenues to the IRS actually increased)

1. Yes, they do. Tax cutes return 22% of the cut amont in taxes. That's a78% decrease in taxe revenue.

2. Revenue increases to the IRS as revenues grow. The rich have skyrocketed their share of income.

 

[PJABBER]

Yes, the stimulus did nothing...

Thanks for agreeing with me! :awe:

See, you CAN be rational if you take the red pill and avoid the blue pill.

 

[palehorse]

You are part of the problem then. What are YOU advocating that has any chance to stand up to the corporotocracy?

Replacing every last one of them with folks who share my centrist positions, of course.

Using any of the silly political calculators out there, I'm generally just to the right of "center." I prefer a much more common-sense approach to arriving at what I consider my personal agenda.

It turns out that I'm not alone... most independents are center/right. So, like I said, good luck with that whole "progressive" thing. I'd rather see violent revolution than any full-scale implementation of the progressive agenda. While the progressives may have a few reps who appear to be more respectable than other groups, their agenda is just plain frightening.

About the only things you and I can consistently agree upon are the protection of the middle class and the elimination of corporate influence in D.C. But, that said, I do not think your progressive agenda is the right one for this country... not at all.