Obama Concedes He Hasn't Brought Country Together

[Craig234]

Noooo....I'm called racist because people are unwilling to admit the facts I post and would rather live in the fantasy world of unicorns and fairys.

Blacks represent the highest percentage of inmates in prison. Thats not racist, thats just the truth.

Minorities often dont test as well in proficiency tests. Thats not racist, thats just the truth. In fact some firemen recently filed a lawsuit because the test results were rejected and promoting was done on basis of color rather than ability.

Should I go on? You can call it racist. I dont care. Others can call it racist. Great. It never has, nor will it ever, change the facts.

So really what it comes down to is the inability of people to deal with reality, so to hide from the harsh light they throw around the racist card in offhand ways to try to rally support for their cause.

Not that racism would ever be used in such a way.....

Now if you'll excuse me, me and my Evil Rich White Buddies need to discuss where we're going to find more starving African babies to feed to the Halliburton Weather Machine.

Pointing out problems with black statistics isn't racist if it's done for a constructive purpose, something you don't understand. It is racist when done to say "THEY SUCK LOL we're great! Screw them!"

 

[Ozoned]

If Obama was real, he might be able to bring people together. He could give a fuck less what you and I think.

Here is his thoughts on Bush Social security reform, which polled higher than the current Health care reform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBAMA: That's a different perspective. The -- from the previous one. You know, I think the American people have already done it and are continuing to do it. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is the president has been on his 60-day tour, and everywhere he goes the numbers just get worse. The American people have essentially voted on this proposal and really what you have is a situation now where I think that the president and the Republican Congress are going to need to figure out a way to save face and -- and step back a little bit. And if -- if they let go of their egos -- listen, I've been on the other side of this where -- particularly with my wife. (laughter) Where I've gotten in an argument and then at some point in the argument it dawns on me, you know what, I'm wrong on this one and it's -- it's -- it's irritating, it's frustrating. You don't want to admit it, and so to the extent that we can provide the president with a graceful mechanism to -- to say we're sorry, dear, then I think that would be -- that would be helpful.

 

[Fern]

As previously mentioned in this thread, the stimulus bill was made nearly 40% tax cuts specifically as a gesture towards more conservative people, and this was done despite the fact that tax cuts were widely viewed as some of the less effective means to stimulate the economy.

And why on earth would no Republicans voting for something be a sign that Obama hadn't attempted to be bipartisan? If the Republicans hadn't attempted to be bipartisan the exact same thing would have happened. I gave the reason that quite a bit of the stimulus bill was at odds with liberal ideology as evidence for the Democrats attempting to be bipartisan. What evidence can you offer that the Republicans were doing the same?

As I have asked others in the past, the bill that was passed was 60% spending and 40% tax cuts (roughly), and you view this as a partisan, party line bill. What proportion of tax cuts and spending do you believe would have been a 'bipartisan' bill?

Yeah it was previously mentioned, but ignored because it's farcical partisan tom-foolery.

Republicans/conservatives wanted a rate cut spreading the money around broadly under the theory people would spend it and stimulate the economy. (The left thinks they would have saved it or paid down bills. Even if true I'm not sure how that's a bad thing because it would have been a captial influx for the banking system.)

A compromise would have been, say only a 5% cut if the Repubs wanted a 10% cut.

Instead what we got was:

1) Another annual extention of the inflation indexing for AMT rates & exemptions. This is largest of the so-called tax break. So the biggest piece of the tax cut was to not raise rates in the future? Anyhoo we all know the Dems were do it anyway (as they have in the past), it's mostly a tax higher income types in high taxed urban areas (i.e., Dem voters) but by sticking it in th estim bill they get to claim 'compromise' (quite cynical IMO) and avoid PAYGO (which is another promise they've avoided). Also, with unemployment and income being what they are nowadays it's likley the $ effect of this is overstated.

2. Welfare payments masquerading as tax cuts. As a tax professional I find this particularly annoying. Because "welfare" is a politically unpopular word Congress has shifted to the (relatively newly created) "refundable" tax credits. I.e., federal give-aways to those who don't pay income tax. And they use the IRS to administer it because it's administratively convenient even though a bastardization of the tax system.

3. There was a broad "credit" of about $250 - $400 for SS retirees and workers making under $75K etc.

4. Incentives to buy new cars & homes. Even though labelled as a "tax cut", this is of course nothing of the sort, again just administered through the IRS for convenience.

BTW: you're quoting the highest possible percentage for "tax cuts", others place it at about 10-12% of the total (and that may be overstated because of the AMT provision estimates).

I agree with you though that these so-called "tax cuts" were/are ineffective at economic stimulus, that's why the Repubs wouldn't vote for even these items. If this is "compromise" I can easily see why the Repubs aren't too interested in this version of it. It's mostly just 'spin' on the word "tax cuts" for political purposes.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Yeah it was previously mentioned, but ignored because it's farcical partisan tom-foolery.

Republicans/conservatives wanted a rate cut spreading the money around broadly under the theory people would spend it and stimulate the economy. (The left thinks they would have saved it or paid down bills. Even if true I'm not sure how that's a bad thing because it would have been a captial influx for the banking system.)

A compromise would have been, say only a 5% cut if the Repubs wanted a 10% cut.

Instead what we got was:

1) Another annual extention of the inflation indexing for AMT rates & exemptions. This is largest of the so-called tax break. So the biggest piece of the tax cut was to not raise rates in the future? Anyhoo we all know the Dems were do it anyway (as they have in the past), it's mostly a tax higher income types in high taxed urban areas (i.e., Dem voters) but by sticking it in th estim bill they get to claim 'compromise' (quite cynical IMO) and avoid PAYGO (which is another promise they've avoided). Also, with unemployment and income being what they are nowadays it's likley the $ effect of this is overstated.

2. Welfare payments masquerading as tax cuts. As a tax professional I find this particularly annoying. Because "welfare" is a politically unpopular word Congress has shifted to the (relatively newly created) "refundable" tax credits. I.e., federal give-aways to those who don't pay income tax. And they use the IRS to administer it because it's administratively convenient even though a bastardization of the tax system.

3. There was a broad "credit" of about $250 - $400 for SS retirees and workers making under $75K etc.

4. Incentives to buy new cars & homes. Even though labelled as a "tax cut", this is of course nothing of the sort, again just administered through the IRS for convenience.

BTW: you're quoting the highest possible percentage for "tax cuts", others place it at about 10-12% of the total (and that may be overstated because of the AMT provision estimates).

I agree with you though that these so-called "tax cuts" were/are ineffective at economic stimulus, that's why the Repubs wouldn't vote for even these items. If this is "compromise" I can easily see why the Repubs aren't too interested in this version of it. It's mostly just 'spin' on the word "tax cuts" for political purposes.

Fern

Oh, wah. You know who I remembering chapioning those tax xredits fo rthe poor? Reagan.

You know who I remember putting the needs of the poor ahead of 'bastardizing' the IRS? Me.

Fern, oe thing you ignore here, this bill was changed greatly *at the request of the Republicans.* You can't give Republicans compromises they ask for and they they're compromises the Repulibcans are against.

Republicans demanded input, got it, and then gave zero voted for the bill.

 

[Fern]

The president said his second-year agenda will be refocused on uniting the country around common values, ''whether we're Democrats or Republicans.''

After thinking more on this, I don't believe Obama can unite us even if he's sincere about it.

Firstly, I don't think he's yet demonstrated he can lead his own party. While he may be a figurehead for the party, Pelosi and Reid are going their own ways, not following Obama. The current HC reform is a good examle. If Obama was leading they'd be passing his legislation, instead those two are passing their own. This is why the House and Senate bills are miles apart.

If he can't get his own party to follow him, he's got zero chance to get the Repubs to follow. IMO, he needs to demonstrate some control over Democrats in Congress before he can gain any sway over some repubs.

At this point, I just don't see him as leading in any meaningful way. He's got 3 more years, maybe he'll figure it out. Might be after the mid-term election he'll get stronger. if Pelosi & Reid lose enough seats their power will be reduced. Seems to me other presidents have actually done better after the mid-terms.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

After thinking more on this, I don't believe Obama can unite us even if he's sincere about it.

Firstly, I don't think he's yet demonstrated he can lead his own party. While he may be a figurehead for the party, Pelosi and Reid are going their own ways, not following Obama. The current HC reform is a good examle. If Obama was leading they'd be passing his legislation, instead those two are passing their own. This is why the House and Senate bills are miles apart.

If he can't get his own party to follow him, he's got zero chance to get the Repubs to follow. IMO, he needs to demonstrate some control over Democrats in Congress before he can gain any sway over some repubs.

At this point, I just don't see him as leading in any meaningful way. He's got 3 more years, maybe he'll figure it out. Might be after the mid-term election he'll get stronger. if Pelosi & Reid lose enough seats their power will be reduced. Seems to me other presidents have actually done better after the mid-terms.

Fern

Since his biggest problem is Repubvlican obstructionism, more Republicans dont make him better.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Fern, oe thing you ignore here, this bill was changed greatly *at the request of the Republicans.* You can't give Republicans compromises they ask for and they they're compromises the Repulibcans are against.

Republicans demanded input, got it, and then gave zero voted for the bill.

If the Repubs asked for those things (which is contrary to conventional wisdom around here - remember they're the party of "No" and haven't offered a single alternative solution) they're idiots too.

But I think most recognize they asked for broad rate cuts, not this gimicky stuff.

Fern

 

[Specop 007]

Pointing out problems with black statistics isn't racist if it's done for a constructive purpose, something you don't understand. It is racist when done to say "THEY SUCK LOL we're great! Screw them!"

Craig I've never said that or pointed it out in that fashion. I do not do so with malice or glee. I do it from a neutral standpoint. Until we can as a whole admit that the black culture, and to a great extent the poor culture in which blacks just happen to exist, has problems those problems will never be properly addressed.

But continuing to think idolizing rappers and criminals, single family homes with no family values and disregarding academics for criminal pursuits is the way forward for the poor is certainly not the solution.

 

[Fern]

Since his biggest problem is Repubvlican obstructionism, more Republicans dont make him better.

I think his biggest problem is Pelosi & Reid and the power they have over Congress. IMO, Congress is the stronger branch and right now those two are doing what they want, not what he wants. I think it's possible with a weaker Congress his presidency could get stronger.

I understand that for the 'party faithful' that may seem apostasy to suggests he gets stronger with more Repubs. But right now I think it's the Democtratic Party that's strong. And of Dem leaders I see Pelosi & Reid as stronger and Obama running #3. Might just be if they lose some power he gains. IMO, only if he's strong can he unite.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Craig I've never said that or pointed it out in that fashion. I do not do so with malice or glee. I do it from a neutral standpoint. Until we can as a whole admit that the black culture, and to a great extent the poor culture in which blacks just happen to exist, has problems those problems will never be properly addressed.

But continuing to think idolizing rappers and criminals, single family homes with no family values and disregarding academics for criminal pursuits is the way forward for the poor is certainly not the solution.

Specop, if you will agree to axknowledge the role of a century of racism, that segregated the blacks as second-class, deprived of advancement available to whites, a major cause of the problems, not the entire cause, then we can agree and I accept your motives, because you're right, in a balanced picture, there are problems and they are better discussed constructively, not ignored.

You do not sound like a bigot in your motivations to me. You do sound like someone who sees a problem and would do well to not grab the first easy answer but look harder at what works.

When I see a young black man go burglar a house - like the one I recently confronted in my back yard - I see a lt of things. Part of it is the same anger you express, and part are the 'larger issues'.

That young black man is a hell of a lot better off not being a criminal just as I and society are.

I've daydreamed about starting a counter product to that 'no snitch' crap. It's wrong and infuriating.

But hopefully you will not leap to just hate.

We have a lack of leadership on this topic - it seems there's more to gain exploiting it on both sides than improving it.

 

[Craig234]

I think his biggest problem is Pelosi & Reid and the power they have over Congress. IMO, Congress is the stronger branch and right now those two are doing what they want, not what he wants. I think it's possible with a weaker Congress his presidency could get stronger.

I understand that for the 'party faithful' that may seem apostacy. But right now I think it's the Democtratic party that's strong. And of Dem leaders I see Pelosi & Reid as stronger and Obama running #3. Might just be if they lose some power he gains. IMO, only if he's strong can he unite.

Fern

That's delusional. Pelosi has largely been getting his agenda passed, and Reid isn't the cause of the stalemate from Republican obstructionism from 40 Republicans and the minority of blue dogs.

What the hell are Pelosi and Reid doing that 'they want' against Obama, compared to what the Republicans are doing against Obama?

 

[Fern]

That's delusional. Pelosi has largely been getting his agenda passed, and Reid isn't the cause of the stalemate from Republican obstructionism from 40 Republicans and the minority of blue dogs.

What the hell are Pelosi and Reid doing that 'they want' against Obama, compared to what the Republicans are doing against Obama?

His "agenda"? It's the Democratic Party's agenda.

Remember we're talking about "uniting" and "compromising", not just passing legislation. It goes without saying that a bunch more dems would help with 'passing'.

I didn't say Pelosi and & Reid were doing something "against" Obama. I'm saying that they are not following him, they are doing it (legislation) their own way. If they were following Obama their two HC bills would not be so far apart. Sure there would be some differences, but not like we're seeing. Heck, Obama didn't stand for much during the HC debate. Public option? Maybe, but it's not essential etc. The only thing I recall him being a bit adament about is the $1 trillion limit. He's 'hands off'.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Since his biggest problem is Repubvlican obstructionism, more Republicans dont make him better.

You're joking right??

The Democrats can do anything they want in both the house and the Senate and the Republicans can do NOTHING to stop them, absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Craig234]

You're joking right??

The Democrats can do anything they want in both the house and the Senate and the Republicans can do NOTHING to stop them, absolutely NOTHING.

You're completely wrong. They do have the House, but the Senate makes that not matter.

Republicans need only one vote - hello, Joe Lieberman - to block ANYTHING with their abusive 'all 60 votes all the time' filibustering.

That means the government can't do anything. Not the President, not the House, nothing requiring Congress.

This would be a VERY different situation, with all kinds of things passing, if not for Repubolican obstructionism.

I've talk to my Conressman's legislative aide. This is the view. The Republicans in the Senate have crippled the ability to get anything passed.

This is their strategy. Just as it was back when they shut down the federal government in a showdown with Clinton. Get nothing done, get the public blaming the Democrats.

All time record filibustering. 70% of major legislation. You can't talk past that.

 

[Craig234]

His "agenda"? It's the Democratic Party's agenda.

Remember we're talking about "uniting" and "compromising", not just passing legislation. It goes without saying that a bunch more dems would help with 'passing'.

I didn't say Pelosi and & Reid were doing something "against" Obama. I'm saying that they are not following him, they are doing it (legislation) their own way. If they were following Obama their two HC bills would not be so far apart. Sure there would be some differences, but not like we're seeing. Heck, Obama didn't stand for much during the HC debate. Public option? Maybe, but it's not essential etc. The only thing I recall him being a bit adament about is the $1 trillion limit. He's 'hands off'.

Fern

I can't tell what you're saying. HC has a unique appoach of let Congress do whatever. THat doesn't mean Pelosi and Reid are rogues. The two bills are different because the House didn't need 60%.

 

[Specop 007]

Specop, if you will agree to axknowledge the role of a century of racism, that segregated the blacks as second-class, deprived of advancement available to whites, a major cause of the problems, not the entire cause, then we can agree and I accept your motives, because you're right, in a balanced picture, there are problems and they are better discussed constructively, not ignored.

You do not sound like a bigot in your motivations to me. You do sound like someone who sees a problem and would do well to not grab the first easy answer but look harder at what works.

When I see a young black man go burglar a house - like the one I recently confronted in my back yard - I see a lt of things. Part of it is the same anger you express, and part are the 'larger issues'.

That young black man is a hell of a lot better off not being a criminal just as I and society are.

I've daydreamed about starting a counter product to that 'no snitch' crap. It's wrong and infuriating.

But hopefully you will not leap to just hate.

We have a lack of leadership on this topic - it seems there's more to gain exploiting it on both sides than improving it.

Hmmm. Nowe lets understand theres a difference between acknowledging the existance and impact of the racism and segregation you mention and using it as a crutch to forgive the actions of minorities today.

The fact of the matter is yes some terrible things have been done in the name of race all across the globe as well as right here in thee US of A. And not all that long ago. We're talking 40 years ago tops.

HOWEVER.....

I was not a slave owner. Do not blame the blight of the black man a century ago on me. My family were not slave owners, in fact there havent been slave owners for a long, long time. So the problem as it exists is blacks today who have never been beaten for being black, you have never been whipped or sold, expect preferential treatment for these actions.

Reparations has simply become the newest form of entitlement.

So while I certainly can admit that if one looks back on our history its easy to find instances of racism and segregation I also have to say quite bluntly "Get over it.".