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

[Mr Spinkles]

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

Wait, when you say "these people" are you referring to unemployed workers or Goldman Sachs? Perhaps we agree after all...

 

[Numinous]

I do wonder about people sometimes. My fire burns in both directions, to the left and to the right.
Bad government policies and bad corporate behavior, often lead to the same result of hurting the people of a country.
Typically, one side orchestrates the government and the other side the corporations.
What I would like to see, is people stand up to their own side and accept responsibility for their faults.
They are both guilty of the blame game, which only stalls solutions. So to are we, if we join in and choose only one side.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hmm .... Mercy I am afraid I don't follow you. I think I get your gist, you're just trying to be humorous, right? Sorry for being dense. :sorry1:

No problem. Yes, I made a humorous comeback to your remark: "When the same reasoning can be used to arrive at two different incompatible conclusions, you know there's something wrong with the reasoning." That immediately made me think of Schrodinger's cat.

That is not what he has done. He has consistently reached over the aisle to taunt the other side.

In his proposals he always throws in raising the national debt which is exactly what the republicans are against. It is not about making people homeless and making the rich even more wealthy.

News flash: If that debt ceiling does not get raised, then our government may well shut down. That may be a wet dream for the Tea Party, but to those who have ANY sense of any kind, they just so happen to know that doing so could push the economy off the cliff. Failure on the Republicans' part to raise the debt ceiling is flat-out stupid.

And as I said to Kathryn, you can deny all you want the fact that Obama has consistently attempted compromise with the Republicans, at the progressive agenda's expense, but denial don't make it so.

When the right bawks and says "come back with a decent proposal by cutting programs the government has no business being in" the left gets up in arms saying "They want to take away your unemployment benefits!" when that is not true.

although, most of this idiocy is media driven because they want to create controversy.

The republicans who have rejects his backhanded "attempts" to "reach across the aisle" have been in the interest of the tremendous national debt which will cripple our country's ability to operate at all.

The government has to shrink. People should not be dependent upon government, the government should be dependent upon the people.

if you want to see real politics watch CSPAN and not Fox News or even worse, "The Daily Show." Holy hell i can't believe people watch that for their "News source"

If you think that the Republicans honestly want to reduce the deficit, then you need to seriously review everything they have done in the last ten years. Have you not forgotten that George W. Bush turned a multi-billion-dollar SURPLUS into a roughly $1.3-trillion deficit, that Obama did NOTHING to generate? Why were the Republicans so silent then? Why have they flip-flopped into becoming militant deficit hawks? It seems that they despise funding programs that will potentially help people find jobs, improve infrastructure, or simply put food on the table; but when it comes to guns, bombs, and war, not to mention tax cuts for the rich, they have absolutely no problem with the deficit!

I just don't get it, madhatter. The hypocrisy from the Right on this matter is baffling.

I'm not saying that he hasn't made symbolic gestures, or done some political grandstanding - he is, after all, first and foremost a lawyer, and knows very well how to stick to the letter of the law while straying far from the spirit of the law.

His ATTITUDE toward who he perceives as his opposition has been incredibly divisive, and in my opinion haughty and even immature.

The man simply doesn't have a grasp of what constitutes appropriate and inspiring leadership.

With all due respect, comments such as these serve to confirm that Democrats have no business attempting to compromise with the Republicans, until the day comes in January that we have to start doing so.

Much as I'm sure you hate him, Keith Olbermann nailed it in one of his criticisms of Obama: The Right hates him so much, that no matter how much he compromises or not, the noise of that hate will be the same. Had Obama understood that, he should have realized that he might as well just go for broke and pass the most progressive legislation in decades.

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

Yet another Republican lie. God, do you people ever THINK about the lies you're being spoonfed? How can potentially lowering the number of job seekers, and definitely not decreasing the number of jobs available, definitely lower the unemployment rate? It's Math 101, Rick! Has the right completely forgotten this?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No problem. Yes, I made a humorous comeback to your remark: "When the same reasoning can be used to arrive at two different incompatible conclusions, you know there's something wrong with the reasoning." That immediately made me think of Schrodinger's cat.

It WAS funny and clever, but ... at the extreme risk of seeming extremely dense and annoying *crosses fingers* .... I want to point out the interesting detail that Schrodinger's cat is a little more subtle, because the chain of reasoning being considered leads to one single seemingly absurd conclusion ("the cat is simultaneously alive and dead"), rather than two different, contradictory conclusions ("the cat is definitely alive" and "the cat is definitely dead"). I was also confused because I tend to think of it as it is sometimes used today, as an illustrative example, rather than as it was originally intended, as an apparent paradox, though both are valid perspectives.

 

[Kathryn]

With all due respect, comments such as these serve to confirm that Democrats have no business attempting to compromise with the Republicans, until the day comes in January that we have to start doing so.

Much as I'm sure you hate him, Keith Olbermann nailed it in one of his criticisms of Obama: The Right hates him so much, that no matter how much he compromises or not, the noise of that hate will be the same. Had Obama understood that, he should have realized that he might as well just go for broke and pass the most progressive legislation in decades.

Lawsy, I hates it when folks say "Wid all due respect." Ah knows Ah gots to duck for cover fo SHO!

But - with all due respect - may I point out to you that Obama seems to be attracting much more angst and anger from the LEFT rather than the right these days.

For the record, I dislike Obama intensely, not because I am a Republican (because I'm not) but because I believe he is grossly underqualified for his position, and because he seems to be particularly inept at leadership. I also don't agree with many of his goals for the country, or many of his ideas about policy - but I could at least respect him more if he was simply less of a lawyer and "community leader" and more of a, well, of a President.

I like my presidents to be capable leaders who are mature and responsible enough to know when NOT to be divisive and partisan. Obama doesn't seem to "get it." He seems quite over his head in his role as "leader of the free world" - or even plain ol' President of the United States of America.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Our POTUS would be the most powerless man in the world. The dude seems to be a moron. Who taught him politics? Need to run a real progressive in the primaries against him come 2012 elections.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Lawsy, I hates it when folks say "Wid all due respect." Ah knows Ah gots to duck for cover fo SHO!

But - with all due respect - may I point out to you that Obama seems to be attracting much more angst and anger from the LEFT rather than the right these days.

Jeez, Kathryn, I was just trying to avoid sounding antagonistic. Is that a bad thing?

For the record, I dislike Obama intensely, not because I am a Republican (because I'm not) but because I believe he is grossly underqualified for his position, and because he seems to be particularly inept at leadership. I also don't agree with many of his goals for the country, or many of his ideas about policy - but I could at least respect him more if he was simply less of a lawyer and "community leader" and more of a, well, of a President.

I like my presidents to be capable leaders who are mature and responsible enough to know when NOT to be divisive and partisan. Obama doesn't seem to "get it." He seems quite over his head in his role as "leader of the free world" - or even plain ol' President of the United States of America.

What's ironic is that many progressives agree with every word of that, except the all-capped "not," and they agree for entirely different reasons. The fact that the Right thinks he is too liberal, and the Left thinks he is not liberal enough, pretty clearly tells me that Obama is a moderate. And that's the crux of his strategic blunder: When you try to please everybody, you wind up pleasing nobody. The Left's contempt for Obama is nothing new; the tax deal merely intensified it.

 

[Kathryn]

Mercy, I was being facetious. That's why I used the goofy accent in my post, sort of as a hint that I wasn't being serious and was having a bit of fun.

Sho nuff, sweet thang, dontchoo GIT IT, BOY? Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?

But I digress.

I am an independent, as are many of my friends and associates. We dislike Obama, not because he's too left wing, or a moderate, or simply because of his policies.

He's got the most lightweight resume I've ever seen for a person in a position of responsibility. Hell, I wouldn't hire him to manage a Burger King franchise, let alone stand at the helm of the United States as Commander in Chief!

But we don't need division and political grandstanding. What we need is an intelligent, honest, problem solver with plenty of leadership experience and what, for lack of a better word, I call "social intelligence" - that innate ability (which cannot be trained into a person) to lead and influence with what at least appears to be humility coupled with competence. Fabulous combination in a leader, and sorely missing from Obama.

 

[Reverend Rick]

He's got the most lightweight resume I've ever seen for a person in a position of responsibility. Hell, I wouldn't hire him to manage a Burger King franchise, let alone stand at the helm of the United States as Commander in Chief!

I'm still hoping he will grow into his job.

 

[Reverend Rick]

And how is that going to lower unemployment? Is that going to create jobs for the unemployed?

Unemployment is suppose to last for 6 months. Some folks have been drawing checks for almost two years now. Do you really believe another year of checks will get them a job?

When you are drawing a check you can be picky about your job choices. When the checks stop, people tend to find a job. If half of these folks learn to settle for less we would have a 5% unemployment rate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still hoping he will grow into his job.

From what I see of people who start businesses or work in management, it's generally a good 10 years before they become a
competent & independent executive. So 2 years (+/- a couple) after his second term, he might be a real cracker jack manager.
But he'll be held back since he has to serve his apprenticeship in a fish bowl, which isn't conducive to admitting one's failures
& learning from them.

 

[Magic Man]

Unemployment is suppose to last for 6 months. Some folks have been drawing checks for almost two years now. Do you really believe another year of checks will get them a job?

That's not the question. The question is whether I believe taking away the benefits will get them a job.

When you are drawing a check you can be picky about your job choices. When the checks stop, people tend to find a job. If half of these folks learn to settle for less we would have a 5% unemployment rate.

Yes, I know you're under this false assumption.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I know you're under this false assumption.

I've personally known many people who wouldn't work (except under the table)
until the unemployment checks stop. His assumption seems far from false.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've personally known many people who wouldn't work (except under the table)
until the unemployment checks stop. His assumption seems far from false.

I have too. But I've also seen people look hard for jobs with the purpose of getting off of unemployment as quickly as possible. We have the wheat in with the tares.

I'd rather make sure that honest folks receive unemployment and have some dishonest people receiving it too than to cut everyone off.... especially because the job market is so bad now, increasing IMHO the amount of honest folks in the pool.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have too. But I've also seen people look hard for jobs with the purpose of getting off of unemployment as quickly as possible. We have the wheat in with the tares.

I'd rather make sure that honest folks receive unemployment and have some dishonest people receiving it too than to cut everyone off.... especially because the job market is so bad now, increasing IMHO the amount of honest folks in the pool.

You correctly point out that it isn't as simple as "all people are this way" or "all people are that way".
The real issue is that if we decide to help the unemployed, how we accomplish that effectively &
without undesirable side effects. That's a tough one, since diligent vetting of the recipient isn't
what gov't does best.

 

[Magic Man]

I've personally known many people who wouldn't work (except under the table) until the unemployment checks stop. His assumption seems far from false.

Oh, you're right. I forgot that meeting a few people like that means it's representative of the entire group. I've met some Asian people who couldn't speak English. I guess that means most Asian people in America don't speak English.

 

[Magic Man]

I have too. But I've also seen people look hard for jobs with the purpose of getting off of unemployment as quickly as possible. We have the wheat in with the tares.

I'd rather make sure that honest folks receive unemployment and have some dishonest people receiving it too than to cut everyone off.... especially because the job market is so bad now, increasing IMHO the amount of honest folks in the pool.

Exactly. What he said.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lower wage workers are too busy swimming in debt to stimulate anything.
Lower wage workers were the ones who would have kept the tax cuts if the Dems actually had an ounce of courage to fight for what they wanted.
Disbanding the tax cuts for the rich and leaving them for the rest of us.

Nevertheless, cutting payroll taxes still cuts the marginal tax rate for workers. Not only will they spend this money, but more importantly,
they have more incentive to work. This is a positive thing right now, & also later when the economy improves.

Oh, you're right. I forgot that meeting a few people like that means it's representative of the entire group. I've met some Asian people who couldn't speak English. I guess that means most Asian people in America don't speak English.

It's so cute when a Smurph tries to reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, you're right. I forgot that meeting a few people like that means it's representative of the entire group. I've met some Asian people who couldn't speak English. I guess that means most Asian people in America don't speak English.

You're so cute when you try to reason.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:biglaugh: