Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Etritonakin]

Since when has a president actually governed? Since when has a president been able to do what they actually wanted to do -assuming they were thinking for themselves at all, and were not just a front man for those whose power is not limited to 4 years (whether they were aware of it or not)? There have been some, but not recently. It's a big ship -there are many men between the wheel and the rudder -and they are NOT working well together! You can't always blame the one at the wheel -especially when there is mutiny afoot!
----------------------------------
The best way to have less government is to NEED less government. Less government requires more personal responsibility -in daily life, business, etc. -and even within the government itself.
Government itself is necessary -but it should serve the people.
When those who govern serve themselves, and the people take unfair advantage of what is good about government -and abuse their freedom -government grows in order to respond to the mess that inevitably ensues, and to avert the disasters these abuses cause, which threaten everyone and everything -until there is no correcting the situation.

 

[linwood]

What would you do if you were President....and more importantly, do you think your opposition would let you do it? Some of us can barely balance a check book let alone balance the government.

The point is that in this instance concerning these "Tax Cuts" he didn`t have to do "anything".
They would have expired if he had simply done nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The best way to have less government is to NEED less government. Less government requires more personal responsibility -in daily life, business, etc....

That'll never sell. Vague & pretty promises of largess always win over the voters.

The point is that in this instance concerning these "Tax Cuts" he didn`t have to do "anything".
They would have expired if he had simply done nothing.

Are you saying that he failed even at doing nothing? Man, that's harsh.
(Caution: attempt at humor)

 

[LuisDantas]

Stonger than Cheney?

I think that you're giving Bush more credit than he deserves.

That makes two of us. GWB was foolish and stubborn, in no way "strong".

 

[Revoltingest]

That makes two of us. GWB was foolish and stubborn, in no way "strong".

"Stubborn' is a kind of strong, especially successful stubborn.

 

[Etritonakin]

"Ask not what your country can do for you" sold pretty well -and he was even sincere!
(Though I'll never stop asking what my country is doing TO me -and will not be cautious about it -no attempt at humor)

Admittedly, I hadn't read the most recent posts. I was responding to an earlier post, but neglected to quote it.

I agree with you in principle, however.

In music, the notes played are no more important than the rests. Much of what we are doing as a country is pointless thrashing about. We need to do something, but that doesn't mean we are doing the right things.

Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Stubborn' is a kind of strong, especially successful stubborn.

I can only assume that strength is over-rated then. Not that I consider GWB successful, mind you. Not in any way, shape or form. That people many failed to recognize his own failures and shortcomings in due time does not make him any less of a failure.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can only assume that strength is over-rated then. Not that I consider GWB successful, mind you. Not in any way, shape or form. That people many failed to recognize his own failures and shortcomings in due time does not make him any less of a failure.

He's a failure in my eyes, precisely because of what he was able to achieve.
Strength has it's value in some circumstances, but I prefer that a leader's values match mine.
Much to the pleasure of most people, my choices always lose.

 

[LuisDantas]

Uh, what did GWB achieve at all? Economic disaster? Erosion of basic civil liberties? Wars under false pretense?

More to the point, are those his achievements, or more properly the failures of those around him to curtail his excesses, delusions and misdemeanors?

 

[Revoltingest]

Uh, what did GWB achieve at all? Economic disaster? Erosion of basic civil liberties? Wars under false pretense?

More to the point, are those his achievements, or more properly the failures of those around him to curtail his excesses, delusions and misdemeanors?

First: The economic disaster was far more of a several decades long bi-partisan effort. He is no more responsible for causing it than Obama, but both are culpable for addressing it poorly.
Second: I think you're using the word "achievement" as strictly a positive thing from your perspective. Convincing the country to start 2 wars was something he strove to achieve, & succeeded. We don't like it, but it's an achievement nevertheless.
Third: Civil liberties were eroded during all presidents over the last couple decades. Who do you think presides over the TSA fiasco? It can't still be Bush. If you want info on Clinton.....
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1130

 

[LuisDantas]

First: The economic disaster was far more of a several decades long bi-partisan effort. He is no more responsible for causing it than Obama, but both are culpable for addressing it poorly.

I agree to a point, particularly due to the speech that motivated this thread. But still, GWB chose to engage in two pointless wars and to create the tax cuts that are essentially indefensable. I would say the balance tips heavily towards showing GWB as more responsible for it.

Second: I think you're using the word "achievement" as strictly a positive thing from your perspective.

True that. Isn't that the natural use of the word?

Convincing the country to start 2 wars was something he strove to achieve, & succeeded. We don't like it, but it's an achievement nevertheless.

If you say so.

Third: Civil liberties were eroded during all presidents over the last couple decades. Who do you think presides over the TSA fiasco? It can't still be Bush. If you want info on Clinton.....
Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton | Tim Lynch | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

I'm afraid that I may have to agree, but still, GWB rose it to previously unbelievable levels.

Of course, Obama disappoints me a lot in this regard as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm afraid that I may have to agree, but still, GWB rose it to previously unbelievable levels.

Alas, they were all too believable.

 

[Falvlun]

Personally, I think a short-term hiatus on tax hikes is a good thing. Just let the economy settle down first, and then attack the debt with a vengence.

 

[Kathryn]

Personally, I am very relieved that the tax cuts were extended. The first positive economic news in nearly two years!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I couldn't believe how inappropriate Obama's press conference was - and what an opportunity he missed to build credibility with moderates and even the right.

Rather than continuing to polarize and divide with his rhetoric about disagreeing with so much of the compromise, he could have focused on the areas of agreement and the positives of the compromise. But instead, once again, he insisted on dividing and demonizing.

The man is a political idiot and a buffoon.

He should be working toward unifying our country rather than doing all he can to divide the ranks. Terrible leadership.

And that, right there, is precisely why he has not been nearly effective as he could have been.

Kathryn, your assertion that Obama has not attempted to reach across the aisle and compromise with the right, could not be further from the truth. That is exactly what he has done, too many times. That would have been bad enough. But now this time, he blames the liberals? And he wonders why much of his base stayed home in November?

I, for one, am glad to see Congressional Democrats from BOTH houses show some spine. They have nothing further to lose, they only get a few weeks to pull this off, and the tax increases for everyone would take effect on January 1 if Congress doesn't act.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Here is what I think they should do. First, stop calling it a "middle class tax cut"; it's a tax cut for middle-class income brackets. This means that everyone, even the rich, would get a tax cut from this alone. The catch is that the rich won't get the same percentage of a cut.

Next, pass the permanent middle-class income bracket tax cut as a stand-alone bill. Do NOTHING further until this passes. If the Republicans try to hold this up, paint them as the tax-hikers that they would be.

Finally, extend the full spectrum of the Bush tax cuts for every income bracket, for two years. Combine this bill with unemployment benefits and the DREAM Act, and do not pass it unless both those provisions are in there in full. (I would like DADT repeal in as well, but I fear that Republicans would rally to sink the whole thing if that provision were included).

 

[Dezzie]

The man is a political idiot and a buffoon.

He should be working toward unifying our country rather than doing all he can to divide the ranks. Terrible leadership.

I completely agree with this statement. I never actually watched the Press Conference though... He probably studdered and laughed a lot during the whole thing. If not... wow... I am surprised! He never seems to take anything seriously and you are 100% right... he should be making us more unified...

 

[dust1n]

My check book would disagree with you. I will grant you that people at the bottom might not see a trickle, but the rest of us do.

It only makes sense that the more money the rich have the more they can spend on goods and services.

If you don't see a trickle, perhaps you are not in the service industry.

Small business in the service industry depends on this trickle to employ more folks.

This reminds me of when Jesus brought loaves and fish to the rich, in which they through the crumbs down to the poor.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It only makes sense that the more money the rich have the more they can spend on goods and services.

But you could use the exact same reasoning to arrive at the opposite conclusion, i.e. "the more money 98% of people who are not rich have, the more they can spend on goods and services". Therefore we need to increase public services and cut taxes for the non-rich, because their wealth and consumption will trickle up to the rich who make money by selling mass produced cars, TVs, etc.

When the same reasoning can be used to arrive at two different incompatible conclusions, you know there's something wrong with the reasoning.

 

[Magic Man]

I completely agree with this statement. I never actually watched the Press Conference though... He probably studdered and laughed a lot during the whole thing. If not... wow... I am surprised! He never seems to take anything seriously and you are 100% right... he should be making us more unified...

Huh? Where did that come from? I've heard a lot of criticism of Obama over the past couple years, but that's a new one to me. It is interesting that you find fault only with his what you call "stuttering", and not the actual message he gives.