DescentBB

The lefties that supported and helped get Obama elected in 2008 just got a real good smack down from Obama's mouthpiece.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ional-left

So all you guys here think Obama's too far left? Well, the lefties think he's just been a continuation of Bush and kissing up to the middle right! All those disaffected lefties may just stay home or decide to get a little schadenfreude come 2012 and allow the righties to get their wish.

Dealmaking is whats supposed to happen in congress. Sticking to an \"ideological purity\" is the stuff that keeps us in deadlock and keeps the parties screaming at each other instead of actually getting anything done. Criticism like this is why I lean left but will never consider myself a Democrat. I'm not leaning 90 degrees to the left like these people are.

Its the fault of a two-party system. If we had a few more political parties that had sizable chunks of congress, there wouldn't even be an option of sticking to \"ideological purity\".

As for 2012, I think it really depends on who the Neocon--er, Party of N--er, religious ri--er, Republicans put up for nomination. If it's some average joe, then I expect the democratic base will be pretty idle and let Obama fight it out himself. If its someone scary like Palin, I would expect everyone who leans even slightly left or center to be out in droves voting for Obama, while all the clueless feminists would be out in droves voting for her.

tunnelcat wrote:the lefties think he's just been a continuation of Bush and kissing up to the middle right!

During the election, I commented about how Obama wanted to paint McCain as a third term of Bush, but Obama was the one who actually sounded like a third term of Bush. Excessive government spending, power creep, intrusions of privacy... both Bush and Obama are way too far to the left on certain topics, and way too far to the right on others.

Oh, for the "good old days" of Clinton with a Republican congress, back when the budget was occasionally balanced and privacy was somewhat respected...

Avder wrote:Dealmaking is whats supposed to happen in congress. Sticking to an "ideological purity" is the stuff that keeps us in deadlock and keeps the parties screaming at each other instead of actually getting anything done. Criticism like this is why I lean left but will never consider myself a Democrat. I'm not leaning 90 degrees to the left like these people are.

Its the fault of a two-party system. If we had a few more political parties that had sizable chunks of congress, there wouldn't even be an option of sticking to "ideological purity".

As for 2012, I think it really depends on who the Neocon--er, Party of N--er, religious ri--er, Republicans put up for nomination. If it's some average joe, then I expect the democratic base will be pretty idle and let Obama fight it out himself. If its someone scary like Palin, I would expect everyone who leans even slightly left or center to be out in droves voting for Obama, while all the clueless feminists would be out in droves voting for her.

Oh, but the lefties are sure getting sticker shock right now. They were hoping for a "change" from years of Republican politics, when in reality, they're getting more of the same ****. Obama used his left base to get elected and then tossed them aside once he got in office. My point is that Obama is NOT the socialist messiah everyone is whinning about. He just another bought off politician that's enabling the new U.S. Plutonomy.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05/ ... ss_WSJBlog

By the way, I would NEVER dream of voting for Palin. She has the brains of a turnip. I'm betting most left-leaning voters will hold their noses come 2012 and vote for Obama if we get a Palin/Republican/ Tea Party candidate as the alternative choice. You can bet Palin's going to run then and she isn't going to play second fiddle this time around. It'll be a fight between Palin and Romney at least. However, if we get a really good independent running who's not from either the political loony bin bunch or the corporate/Wall Street a$$ kissers, I may vote differently.

Lothar, how come spending skyrocketed during the 8 years Congress was Republican controlled at the end of Clinton's reign and during most of Bush's reign? I thought conservatives were, um, conservative spenders?

Looks like the rich were getting rid of some disposable income before the Obama Administration and the soon to be lame duck congress taxes the crap out of them.

So, you think that the Bush tax cuts should NOT be allowed to expire at a time of high national debt? You think maybe we should just cut spending? WHERE? Get rid of Social Security or Medicare? Trim the military budget maybe? Those 2 areas are the biggest drains on the national budget. So who should get it in the shorts?

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/13/21 ... althy.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... ?src=busln

NASA. Kill NASA. (For some reason, when I was in high school, I thought that NASA was a huge portion of the national budget.)

I really doubt Palin will run. She resigned from office when she got a whiff of the money she could be making from giving speeches and writing books marketed towards the Tea Party types. She's not going to step away from that for the meager salary of the President.

null0010 wrote:NASA. Kill NASA. (For some reason, when I was in high school, I thought that NASA was a huge portion of the national budget.)

I really doubt Palin will run. She resigned from office when she got a whiff of the money she could be making from giving speeches and writing books marketed towards the Tea Party types. She's not going to step away from that for the meager salary of the President.

You ever wonder why some one would spend 100s of millions of dollars to get that job? Look how much Clinton is worth now. You have to be some kind of moron to believe they don't do it for personal gain. Hell Obama was only worth a little over a million now he's worth ten times that.

http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/bl ... m-and-40m/

http://www.mangoboss.com/ObamaNetWorth

tunnelcat wrote:So, you think that the Bush tax cuts should NOT be allowed to expire at a time of high national debt? You think maybe we should just cut spending? WHERE?

Public sector pay for one thing. How about they pay for their own health-care as well? Maybe they shouldn't receive a pension for life after they leave office! They should be forced to contribute to their own retirement fund instead they rely on taxpayer monies to fund their retirement.

Notice I didn't even mention tax cuts.

tunnelcat wrote:So, you think that the Bush tax cuts should NOT be allowed to expire at a time of high national debt? You think maybe we should just cut spending? WHERE?

The flip side of that is the 10% unemployment rate…try and remember who hires most people.

About the debt…the government should spend what it takes in, that is what they expect us to do.

Why don't they post the real unemployment numbers? I guess they are afraid to let the public know how bad it really is.

Shadowstats show different numbers based on real unemployment vs the government adjusted numbers so unemployment is about twice the 10% government reports. Just because people are discouraged doesn't mean they are employed.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da ... ent-charts

If you don't know these are depression era numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression