“Clinton said he didn’t see President Obama’s press conference to know whether Obama’s tone was too combative, yet with Clinton’s past success at reaching compromises with congressional Republicans, maybe he’s trying to help Obama set a new tone ”

Depends on the meaning of ” class warfare “.

Of course Clinton saw Obama’s demagoguing and divisive scolding .
Yes , Clinton knows Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator .
He knows Obama is a phony union thug in way over his head .

By the way , Bill , why is your lovely wife supporting the Muslim Brotherhood , the group who wants to wipe out Israel , so strongly ? Is is partially because Weiner’s wife , her assistant , has close family members ( mother and brother ) in tight with the MB leadership . Hmm ?

Nice comments, Bill, pretty accurate.

Pointing out that the disparity between rich and poor Americans has grown immensely in the last thirty years is not waging class warfare, Clinton argues,
———————————————————

It’s because YOU sold-out to the financial industry lobbyists, and removed Glass-Steagal.

Didn’t you know all the capital that was previously INVESTED in the broader economy, would now be diverted into commission/fee-generating TRADING? Did you not know, or just didn’t care?

Your buddies like Rubin (made $100 million off the sell-out) made out, but not the rest of the country.

and now abccbsnbcmsnbccnn will start parotting these remarks, claiming that the republicans are lying when they claim the dems and obama are pushing class warfare.

Just watch, these liberal media folks are absolutely frikin hysterical – all CNNers will immediately take Bill’s words and use them time and time and time again.

Liberal mind meld, group grope, gropu think….it is what they do now. No responsibility for truth or fact, justlooking for the talking point of the day/week/month to be provided to them by some liberal democrat.

Yawn.

It is class warfare, a war the Republicans have been waging furiously at least since FDR’s era. And look who’s winning. 1% of American families own more than 40% of American net worth. 10% of American families own approximately 75% of American net worth. The lower strata, about 40% of Americans scrabble over about 4% – that’s four per cent – of American net worth (yet they consume, they pay sales taxes, property taxes, car tags, registration, other fees associated with just existing so don’t try to sell the BS that they don’t pay taxes – they pay a higher rate relative to income than the 10% I mentioned).

The middle class, the remaining 50% scrabbles over the remainder, about 20%, to maintain status as ‘middle class” – and the sad thing is the middle class is under far greater attack than are those 10% – the Republican goal to create a neo-feudal society where the super rich own everything, all the real estate, and the rest of us pay to support them in the style to which they’ve become acustomed is well underway — see record foreclosures for example. And the Tea Party freak show are useful idiots for that agenda. For all their claims of being patriotic, their result is unAmerican. They don’t like the term redistribution of wealth but we’re seeing one of the greatest redistributions of wealth from the many to the few in our history. Hope thy enjoy their serfdom. Or in the Tea Stooges’ case, their serfdumb.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Pointing out that the disparity between rich and poor Americans has grown immensely in the last thirty years is not waging class warfare, Clinton argues,——————————————————— It’s because YOU sold-out to the financial industry lobbyists, and removed Glass-Steagal. Didn’t you know all the capital that was previously INVESTED in the broader economy, would now be diverted into commission/fee-generating TRADING? Did you not know, or just didn’t care? Your buddies like Rubin (made $100 million off the sell-out) made out, but not the rest of the country.

If you’re going to bitch at least get some part of your post right. Gramm Leach Bliley, the bill that repealed Glass Steagall – name the Democrat in the group? No, all Republican. GLB passed the senate the first time with 56 votes – only one Democrat voted for it. Not enough to keep it going, didn’t get to Clinton’s desk. With backroom deals, shuck and jive it passed a second time with 90 votes. What does that mean? VETO EFFING PROOF!!! Clinton signed it, didn’t need to bother – he couldn’t have stopped it. As for your line about Clinton selling out to the financial industry, see that line again – ‘Gramm Leach Bliley” – and you’ll see who is owned by the financial industry.

The rich are mostly conservatives. But liberals are smarter, so the rich are mostly liberals. Conservatives aren’t as smart, so most of them live in trailers. But most of the rich are conservatives, so they must be smarter.

Obama shouldn’t be selling the budget battle as class warfare, Bubba. Don’t blame the media for what the President is doing.

Perdido said:
The rich are mostly conservatives. But liberals are smarter, so the rich are mostly liberals. Conservatives aren’t as smart, so most of them live in trailers. But most of the rich are conservatives, so they must be smarter.

Exactly. Clear as mud, ain’t it?

Bill Adkins said:
– the Republican goal to create a neo-feudal society where the super rich own everything, all the real estate, and the rest of us pay to support them in the style to which they’ve become acustomed is well underway

Hey Bill, if they own everything, what the hell are we going to pay them with?

Your problem is that you seem to think there’s a finite amount of wealth. You’re mistaken.

“…maybe he’s trying to help Obama set a new tone? ”

Give that man a cigar !

No. Wait !

I thought I explained this. There aren’t any rich liberals, because they’re not as smart. But they’re also smarter.

Perdido said:
I thought I explained this. There aren’t any rich liberals, because they’re not as smart. But they’re also smarter.

Liberals are the smartest people alive. That’s why they need welfare.

The Lantern of Truth said:
“…maybe he’s trying to help Obama set a new tone? ”

Give that man a cigar !

No. Wait !

OMG! I was going to ignore this column, but I must say I just ruined another Keyboard
with coffee!!
ROTFL

Bill Adkins said:
If you’re going to bitch at least get some part of your post right. Gramm Leach Bliley, the bill that repealed Glass Steagall – name the Democrat in the group? No, all Republican. GLB passed the senate the first time with 56 votes – only one Democrat voted for it. Not enough to keep it going, didn’t get to Clinton’s desk. With backroom deals, shuck and jive it passed a second time with 90 votes. What does that mean? VETO EFFING PROOF!!! Clinton signed it, didn’t need to bother – he couldn’t have stopped it. As for your line about Clinton selling out to the financial industry, see that line again – ‘Gramm Leach Bliley” – and you’ll see who is owned by the financial industry.

and to think even with all our financial difficulties today, if by some strange reason mccain got enough votes in ’08 we would have had phil graham giving him advice on what to do with our economy.

Perdido said:
The rich are mostly conservatives. But liberals are smarter, so the rich are mostly liberals. Conservatives aren’t as smart, so most of them live in trailers. But most of the rich are conservatives, so they must be smarter.

Pablo said:
Exactly. Clear as mud, ain’t it?

It’s easy! There are lots of liberals….like liberals in Washington who pretend like they care about the impoverished to get their votes.

It’s very similar to the conservatives in Washington who convince working families that they need to accept Medicare becoming a voucher program while the rich enjoy more tax breaks.

These two sides have cocktails together while we fight tooth and nail against each other. Pretty neat, huh?

Pablo said:
Hey Bill, if they own everything, what the hell are we going to pay them with?

Credit, just like now.

If Bill was President we would not be in this position, because Bill Clinton is not a Progressive, and he never was.

Bills first instinct is to get the Federal Government out of the way. Thereby increasing the individuals freedom to act and solve the problems they as individuals face. Obama has chosen the opposite course and pushed Government intervention instead. But the Government solution is no solution at all. It is in-fact the problem.

Obama and the Progressives in the House and Senate pushed Government intrusion and economic control to levels never before seen in the USA. Removing the human value of individual initiative, and replaced it with Government directives, mandates and regulation; The opposite of Freedom.

There is a direct and measurable link between the level of Economic Freedom of a nation and the Prosperity of its Citizens. We in America are losing our Economic Freedom, and so our Prosperity. You cannot have one, without the other…If you want a return to Prosperity, then we must demand the return of our Freedom.

America is Less Free today than when Obama and the Progressives took office. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, if you are American First, that should bother you.

Pablo said:
Hey Bill, if they own everything, what the hell are we going to pay them with? Your problem is that you seem to think there’s a finite amount of wealth. You’re mistaken.

I don’t think there’s a ‘finite amount of wealth.’ But I do think the current system redistributes that wealth created to the few and to the detriment of the many. Re-read my post, your comprehension is off, particularly your understanding of feudalism and your serfdumb-hood..

Pablo said:
Your problem is that you seem to think there’s a finite amount of wealth. You’re mistaken

Infinite water supplies, infinite food supplies, infinite amount of space?

ChiliPeppersFan said:
and to think even with all our financial difficulties today, if by some strange reason mccain got enough votes in ‘08 we would have had phil graham giving him advice on what to do with our economy.

But now we’ve got Jeff Immelt doing it. Yay!

Bill Adkins said:
I don’t think there’s a ‘finite amount of wealth.’ But I do think the current system redistributes that wealth created to the few and to the detriment of the many.

Do you think Americans live better today than they did in 1940?

valkyrie101 said:
Credit, just like now.

And who’s going to extend that credit to people with nothing to pay it back with?

The richest people in this country are all Libs. That’s your ‘class warfare’ right there, folks.

GoneFishing said:
America is Less Free today than when Obama and the Progressives took office. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, if you are American First, that should bother you

In what way is it less free because of Obama? Have you forgotten 60 votes? Progressive’s do not control anything and our entire quagmire is a function of both democrats and republicans.

Pablo said:
And who’s going to extend that credit to people with nothing to pay it back with?

Citibank, for example.

Clinton’s message is a how-to for Obama. This is how a president leads. More on the job training. Like Hillary pointed out in the primaries, Obama may be inexperienced be sure gives a good speech. Half of the people who voted for Obama are more concerned about American Idol.

valkyrie101 said:
In what way is it less free because of Obama? Have you forgotten 60 votes? Progressive’s do not control anything and our entire quagmire is a function of both democrats and republicans.

The Progressive Caucus controlled the house for 4 years until they were defeated in 2010. The Rules of the House are such that the Minority has very limited power to effect legislation.

In the Senate, the Minority does have the power to stop legislation, an most of it thankfully was stopped until 2008 when the Dem’s with Progressives at the lead gained a super majority. The only reason we are not in worse shape than we are, is because not all Democrats are Progressives. Some still prefer Freedom of the Individual to Government imposed action, directives and mandates.

Pablo said:
Do you think Americans live better today than they did in 1940?

Sure, most do.

Pablo said:
And who’s going to extend that credit to people with nothing to pay it back with?

The EU ?

GoneFishing said:
The Progressive Caucus controlled the house for 4 years until they were defeated in 2010. The Rules of the House are such that the Minority has very limited power to effect legislation. In the Senate, the Minority does have the power to stop legislation, an most of it thankfully was stopped until 2008 when the Dem’s with Progressives at the lead gained a super majority. The only reason we are not in worse shape than we are, is because not all Democrats are Progressives. Some still prefer Freedom of the Individual to Government imposed action, directives and mandates.

You support my argument that Progressives do not control things and that our current situation is a function of both democrats and republicans.

david r said:
Clinton’s message is a how-to for Obama. This is how a president leads. More on the job training. Like Hillary pointed out in the primaries, Obama may be inexperienced be sure gives a good speech. Half of the people who voted for Obama are more concerned about American Idol.

Obama would be doing lots of things if he was permitted to, but he has been up against an opposition party that seeks, explicitly, to sink the Obama presidency so that the people will get mad and vote for republicans.

Val, people will do what Obama asked them to do when he was trying to get elected the first time. Ask themselves if they are better off than they were 4 years ago. If they aren’t, he asks that you vote against the incumbent.

GoneFishing said:
The Progressive Caucus controlled the house for 4 years until they were defeated in 2010. The Rules of the House are such that the Minority has very limited power to effect legislation. In the Senate, the Minority does have the power to stop legislation, an most of it thankfully was stopped until 2008 when the Dem’s with Progressives at the lead gained a super majority. The only reason we are not in worse shape than we are, is because not all Democrats are Progressives. Some still prefer Freedom of the Individual to Government imposed action, directives and mandates.

Exactly, the minority does have the power to stop legislation — and that’s EXACTLY what the Republicans have done since 2007, the Democrats having only a 1 seat majority in the senate 2007-2009 and 2009-1/2010 they were cowardly and didn’t use the 60 seat majoritty they had. Oh, and Bush used his veto 12 times in two terms, 11 times 2007-2009.

valkyrie101 said:
Obama would be doing lots of things if he was permitted to, but he has been up against an opposition party that seeks, explicitly, to sink the Obama presidency so that the people will get mad and vote for republicans.

He had a super majority….. are you for real??? And even now all they (Repubs) have is the house… are you for real? Bush NEVER had Obama’s majorities… and you held him responsible for EVERYTHING! Stop giving him so much cover for Gawds sake and start holding him a little accountable … geeeeeez.

valkyrie101 said:
You support my argument that Progressives do not control things and that our current situation is a function of both democrats and republicans.

I agree with that……

valkyrie101 said:

Pablo said:
Do you think Americans live better today than they did in 1940?
Sure, most do.

And the Republican Party and their useful idiots the Tea Stooges are intent upon taking America back – to 1929. Or more appropriately, 1932 and the end of Hoover’s one term.

Watch Bubba & Wolf? No way. The only pair more barf-inducing would be Maddow & Couric.

George C said:
The EU ?

Lol, maybe not. Clarke and Dawes have it right…the best analysts on earth on the world economies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thSTpGnWEAs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_3T-Af57Pg&feature=related

The Republicans have made it class warfare by promoting cuts to everything that affects lower income folks and not asking anything of those at the top.

But Bill, the Koch brothers are the “productive people”. They earned every thing they inherited and deserve to be calling all the shots in our country.

” I think we’ve reached a similar turning point in this presidency where (a) Obama’s (and Michelle’s) delusions of grandeur have become objects of ridicule; b) Obama’s feet of clay are obvious. He may be the only person left in Washington who has not yet realized how inadequate he is to the tasks before him; (c) the people and the press are beginning to turn on him, and as his failures become even more obvious with each passing day, more people will feel free to attack him and his policies and their attacks will become ever more savage as the gap between the promise and reality grow ever more stark.

The man with no available school records, for example, was painted as a genius and his brief time as a University of Chicago adjunct (basically teaching assistant) puffed up to a professorship in constitutional law. The guy who cannot speak a logical, coherent, grammatical sentence on his own was pawned off as a literary genius to unsuspecting, foolish voters. It was inevitable that the reality of his time in office could never match the dream. It was unfortunately equally inevitable that he would prove inadequate to the difficult job of the presidency.

This week’s press conference revealed him as a man desperately clinging to the same rhetorical devices that have long worn thin: demagogic false choices, class warfare and a preposterous description of himself as the reasonable adult in the legislative process.

His fundraising takes up more and more of his time and seems to be less and less productive. At last count the idiotic lottery to have lunch with him, Vice President Biden, the White House chef and anyone else not gadding about the world on taxpayer paid vacations was reduced from $5 to $3 a pop.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_community_organizer_who_would_be_king.html

MBW said:
The Republicans have made it class warfare by promoting cuts to everything that affects lower income folks and not asking anything of those at the top.

Until Democrat politicians willingly pay their ” fair share ” of taxes and quit trying to hiding their yachts to escape payings their ” fair share ” of taxes , and setting up trusts and shelters to avoid paying their ” fair share ” of taxes they really have no moral authority on the issue and frankly , should STFU.

valkyrie101 said:
You support my argument that Progressives do not control things and that our current situation is a function of both democrats and republicans.

Sorry, no that is just not accurate at all. The Progressive Caucus is driving the Democrat Bus and has been for years…and if it were not for the few Democrats who are not Progressive control-freak nutters and the Republican opposition, we would have been over the cliff long ago.

We are still heading for the cliff, and If something is not done soon to free the American Citizen and our Economy from the regulatory and directed burden placed there by Obama and the Progressives, we will go over anyway. The election in 2020 did not stop our heading over the cliff, it just slowed us down.

The progressive ideal…Or how to destroy a country in three easy lesions. It is not a solution to our problems.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/

Fokker News said:
But Bill, the Koch brothers are the “productive people”. They earned every thing they inherited and deserve to be calling all the shots in our country.

You would have thought with all of Ted ” The Lion of the Senate” Kennedys hard earned inheritence he could have spent the $ 75 to take a life saving class .

MBW said:
The Republicans have made it class warfare by promoting cuts to everything that affects lower income folks and not asking anything of those at the top.

Libs feast on making sure that as many people as possible are ‘lower income folks.’ And as for not asking anything of those at the top, Libs are the ones who seemingly have absolutely no problem with GE escaping with trillions of dollars in earnings without one dime paid in taxes. Why? Because GE is your ‘friend.’ Libs at the ‘Top’ like George Soros get a ‘hall pass’ from criticism because they’re your ‘pals.’

Libs are hypocrites. They rail against those at the ‘Top’ even though most of those people at the ‘Top’ are bleeding Libs themselves.

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
Val, people will do what Obama asked them to do when he was trying to get elected the first time. Ask themselves if they are better off than they were 4 years ago. If they aren’t, he asks that you vote against the incumbent.

So Obama will be getting all the corporate votes this time, I suppose, since they are making record profits and their executive pay keeps going up.

Fokker looks down on inherited wealth. I’m sure he was getting ready to mention Kennedy.

ChrisNH said:
Libs feast on making sure that as many people as possible are ‘lower income folks.’ And as for not asking anything of those at the top, Libs are the ones who seemingly have absolutely no problem with GE escaping with trillions of dollars in earnings without one dime paid in taxes. Why? Because GE is your ‘friend.’ Libs at the ‘Top’ like George Soros get a ‘hall pass’ from criticism because they’re your ‘pals.’ Libs are hypocrites. They rail against those at the ‘Top’ even though most of those people at the ‘Top’ are bleeding Libs themselves.

Wrong, “libs” favor higher taxes for all corporations, including GE.

Perdido said:
Fokker looks down on inherited wealth. I’m sure he was getting ready to mention Kennedy.

And Rockefeller…. and Hersh….. and etc.

tatboy said:
I agree with that……

How is that possible? :-)

valkyrie101 said:
Wrong, “libs” favor higher taxes for all corporations, including GE.

REALLY!!!! the “libs” on MSNBC don’t seem to tow that line???

valkyrie101 said:
How is that possible? :-)

Scary hugh?

SuperStar said:
You would have thought with all of Ted ” The Lion of the Senate” Kennedys hard earned inheritence he could have spent the $ 75 to take a life saving class .

OUCH !

tws258 said:
OUCH !

Yah… that’s gonna leave a mark.

valkyrie101 said:
Obama would be doing lots of things if he was permitted to, but he has been up against an opposition party that seeks, explicitly, to sink the Obama presidency so that the people will get mad and vote for republicans.

And this is new? You think the GOP wasn’t after Clinton his whole presidency? Remember Whitewater? Obama just acts like a petulant baby child in these situations. Everyone talks about how smart Obama is. If you put Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Clinton in a room and gave them a deck of cards, Clinton would come out of the room with all their money.

Clinton also chastised the media for saying that the sky is blue and water is wet.

Bill Adkins said:
Exactly, the minority does have the power to stop legislation — and that’s EXACTLY what the Republicans have done since 2007, the Democrats having only a 1 seat majority in the senate 2007-2009 and 2009-1/2010 they were cowardly and didn’t use the 60 seat majoritty they had. Oh, and Bush used his veto 12 times in two terms, 11 times 2007-2009.

Your post is an excellent example of the Progressive totalitarian mindset, and why it fails in America. This is Not a dictatorship…yet, no matter how much you wish it was. No one party gets to dictate policy without regard to the opposition, but the Progressives sure do try.

As the Oracle of Omaha has said on many occasions: There is class warfare and his class his winning. The Repuglicons set the fire, and now that the firemen have arrived, they’ve been vandalizing the truck and the hoses. while bitching about the firemen being unable to put out the fire.

“The war against working people should be understood to be a real war…. Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class…. And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don’t want anybody else to know about it.” — Noam Chomsky

Thom Hartmann had a great “Conversations with Great Minds” segment on wealth inequality in America with Chuck Collins, mega-multi millionaire to the Oscar Meyer fortune. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZftX0typis

tatboy said:
REALLY!!!! the “libs” on MSNBC don’t seem to tow that line???

When you make a statement like that, you need to to back it up with quotes, etc. Right? But in general, and I could give a shit what MSNBC, and NBC, or any of the big corporate backed media groups say, taxes on those who are earning all the money is obviously necessary. Its like we are in a boat adrift at sea and one guy has 99% of the food that he is sitting on, while exercising his constitutional right to bare arms, and you’re sitting there supporting him, for a few crumbs, because afterall, he earned all that food. Because the lives of the wealthy are worth more than the poor. LOL>

david r said:
And this is new? You think the GOP wasn’t after Clinton his whole presidency? Remember Whitewater? Obama just acts like a petulant baby child in these situations. Everyone talks about how smart Obama is. If you put Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Clinton in a room and gave them a deck of cards, Clinton would come out of the room with all their money.

Oh times are way different now than during the Clinton era. The republicans are no longer primarily moderate law makers voting their personal conscience, they have all been dragged over to the right (like Mitt Romney, who would be sitting pretty right now if he had stayed a moderate), and they vote as a block, politically, with the stated purpose of opposing all of the Presidents initiatives, policies, judge appointments, and anything else.

valkyrie101 said:
Wrong, “libs” favor higher taxes for all corporations, including GE.

You need to understand a basic reality of Economics. Corporations Never Pay Taxes, they just collect the taxes demanded by Governments from You and I, the Consumer; one way or another. Your solution is just not a solution at all, Its a sham, a shell game, and the consumer is the rube.

High Corporate taxes do not harm the Rich…not even a little bit. High Corporate Taxes are just passed on…a hidden tax on the consumer and employee of those corporations.

All taxes on Business increase the price of goods and services to consumers. Decrease wages and benefits available to the employees of those Corporations. Reduce the number of employees a Corporation can afford, and lower dividends and asset value to investors so your 401K or retirement account is worth less.

The Rich? they get theirs, and you pay for it with higher costs, fewer jobs, and less benefits.

valkyrie101 said:
When you make a statement like that, you need to to back it up with quotes, etc. Right? But in general, and I could give a shit what MSNBC, and NBC, or any of the big corporate backed media groups say, taxes on those who are earning all the money is obviously necessary. Its like we are in a boat adrift at sea and one guy has 99% of the food that he is sitting on, while exercising his constitutional right to bare arms, and you’re sitting there supporting him, for a few crumbs, because afterall, he earned all that food. Because the lives of the wealthy are worth more than the poor. LOL>

If you want me to disagree with you on taxing the rich more, you won’t get me to do that. But if you think the taxes will just stay with the rich you are fooling yourself. the taxes will hit us (the middle class) as well. It always does. If you want to know the future look at the past. The Dems have always been a tax and spend party… name me a time they weren’t? They like taxes and big ones. They like taxing everything…….

http://nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

… so if you believe they Dems only will tax the $250,000 and above I’ve got some ocean front property here in Missouri I’ll sell ya cheap. Look at what the Dems have done in the past and you’ll know what they will do to you in the future. Let the Dems (who have the Senate and the WH BTW) cut spending FIRST and then we’ll listen to the idea of tax hikes on Americans.

BTW… how can I provide a quote of MSNBC *not* mentioning GE non-payment of taxes?? My point is they ignored the story and didn’t report on it. They whistled past the graveyard so to speak. That was my whole point…. no story….. no quote. They are (as liberals) HYPOCRITES.

Alice67 said:
Grover Norquist controls the Republican Party.

Grover? Is he a muppet?

MBW said:
The Republicans have made it class warfare by promoting cuts to everything that affects lower income folks and not asking anything of those at the top.

the Republicans have made it class warfare by cutting the free goodies for the bottom paid for by the top, but they’re not asking anything of the top, who still pays for the vast majority of everything?

That the big problem with America. Not enough free shit paid for by someone else.

Pathetic.

Tat,
Look at the history of the upper bracket tax rate. During WW1 if you earned over 1 million you paid 77% in taxes. During WW2 If you earned over 200K, you paid 94% of it to taxes (because the view was that no one should be getting rich off the war). During the Korean War the rate was 91% over 400K. During the Viet Nam War it was 70-77% on everything over 200K. Today, during perhaps the costliest war in history, the tax rate is: 35% on everything over 357K. The current war has cost perhaps 3 trillion dollars. Does that look right?

valkyrie101 said:
Oh times are way different now than during the Clinton era. The republicans are no longer primarily moderate law makers voting their personal conscience, they have all been dragged over to the right (like Mitt Romney, who would be sitting pretty right now if he had stayed a moderate), and they vote as a block, politically, with the stated purpose of opposing all of the Presidents initiatives, policies, judge appointments, and anything else.

There is some truth to this, but I see the GOP reaction to the Tea Party Movement as typical gutless political behavior on the part of many GOP office holders. The big game has always been to make things appear like the other side is one responsible for all the tough decisions that sting a bit. I have noticed what you speak of, and anticipate some of the moderate GOP figures will stake out their own ground on issues and not just pander to the right. Clinton always had a way to peel off many of these guys. You don’t do that by preaching or scolding. I think it is just inexperience on Obama’s part.

Not once, do any of these political-beggars give an explanation as to why there has been a growing disparity. They want you to assume that the rich have gotten richer because they are evil. The fact that nearly have of the workers in this Nation are NOT paying their fair share, or anything at all, never enters the argument. Never do they tell you that the number of our yearly importation of legal immigrants is adding to the number of out of work citizens, or that they are a large part of out deficit. This government tells us their’s around 13-million illegal aliens within our borders, with the vast majority illegally, on some sort of public, tax-funded, welfare program. And you can safely bet that if their telling us it’s 13-million, the number is probably closer to 20-million illegal alien parasites feeding off of us.
And now we’ve got another horses-apple (Clinton) telling us we must “sacrifice” again to pay for the unbelievable incompetence of the present administration! Not once does this clown, or anyone on the Left suggest cutting welfare programs, better known as “entitlements”. There’s some sacrificing that needs to be done alright, and it starts by cutting this corrupt bloated government to only the necessary, and Constitutional needs of this country. The bleeding needs to start at the top!

SuperStar said:
Until Democrat politicians willingly pay their ” fair share ” of taxes and quit trying to hiding their yachts to escape payings their ” fair share ” of taxes , and setting up trusts and shelters to avoid paying their ” fair share ” of taxes they really have no moral authority on the issue and frankly , should STFU.

Heh heh heh

tatboy said:
He had a super majority….. are you for real???

No he did not. To pass a bill over the opposition party, nowadays, even on small insignificant bills, requires 60 Senate votes. Obama did not have it.

valkyrie101 said:
Tat,
Look at the history of the upper bracket tax rate. During WW1 if you earned over 1 million you paid 77% in taxes. During WW2 If you earned over 200K, you paid 94% of it to taxes (because the view was that no one should be getting rich off the war). During the Korean War the rate was 91% over 400K. During the Viet Nam War it was 70-77% on everything over 200K. Today, during perhaps the costliest war in history, the tax rate is: 35% on everything over 357K. The current war has cost perhaps 3 trillion dollars. Does that look right?

Sounds right to me. As taxes went down on the rich. They went down not the middle class as well. Taxes have never been lower and spending higher. As I said, I have no problem taxing the rich and your point is well taken. Do you see mine ?

Fokker News said:
But Bill, the Koch brothers are the “productive people”. They earned every thing they inherited and deserve to be calling all the shots in our country.

Oh gee…is it too early to start a drinking game? If it is I can pull out my bingo card. I think “Koch” is on numerous squares. Hey Libs, you do know it is pronounced “Coke” and not “Cock?” With your fascination with teabagging I just wanted to make sure you weren’t trying to make the whole “package” by bringing the two together.

valkyrie101 said:
No he did not. To pass a bill over the opposition party, nowadays, even on small insignificant bills, requires 60 Senate votes. Obama did not have it.

Until Ted Kennedy passed he had 60

Scott Brown even signed his name with the #41 while running for Senate

At this point I can honestly say I miss Clinton and I NEVER thought I would entertain that thought in a million years.

david r said:
Obama would be doing lots of things if he was permitted to, but he has been up against an opposition party that seeks, explicitly, to sink the Obama presidency so that the people will get mad and vote for republicans.

Obama had the White House, the House and Senate for 2 years but yet it is still the oppositions fault? Seriously, do you read what you type?

david r said:
Clinton always had a way to peel off many of these guys. You don’t do that by preaching or scolding. I think it is just inexperience on Obama’s part.

Different more hard core republican philosophy of opposition now, and there is nothing Obama can do.

2012freedom said:
Seriously, do you read what you type?

Obama was blocked cold by the republican 60 vote requirement. Correct?

tatboy said:
Sounds right to me. As taxes went down on the rich. They went down not the middle class as well. Taxes have never been lower and spending higher. As I said, I have no problem taxing the rich and your point is well taken. Do you see mine ?

You can not maintain the costliest war in history (in dollars), while not raising the revenue to pay for that without accruing huge deficits which is what has happened. It was always considered a no no to make big profits during time of war, but now, the men who sell the weapons, are becoming billionaires. That’s screwed up.

valkyrie101 said:
Obama was blocked cold by the republican 60 vote requirement. Correct?

He had 60

The GOP along with Frank Luntz are so creative at assigning pejorative terms to policies they oppose.

1) Raising taxes on the super wealthy is “class warfare”.
2) Abortion doctors are “baby killers”.
3) Those supporting sensible immigration reform are part of the “open border crowd”. Note: I get a chuckle every time Bill O’Reilly resorts to this obvious falsehood. No sane person in America wants open borders.
4) Many policies benefiting the middle (and lower) class are labeled as being a form of “socialism”.
5) All those receiving unemployment are “lazy slackers scamming the system”.
6) Advisory committees for seniors about life and death decisions were derisively labeled “death panels”.
7) Labor union members requesting the right to negotiate are labeled as “greedy”.

It’s time the dems fight fire with fire – except with more honest rhetoric.

If this means the president adopts a harsher (or “dickish” see Halperin) tone, so be it. Many of us are so tired of the so-called liberal media (aka corporate media) allowing the language from the Right to control the conversation.

Wow Michael T. This is very funny, labor unions are who have run the jobs out of America. You and the liberals can’t understand this. Boeing wants to build planes in South Carolina and Obama says no. He keeps lying to the American people about wanting to create jobs here. He has a chance, but he has to blame someone else. There is no sensible immigration reform unless you do everything Obama wants. He wants people to break the law as long as they vote Democratic. He is afraid of having photo id’s required to vote. This wouldn’t allow the dead, and illegals to vote anymore. People have to have photo id’s to: sign up for social security, sign up for medicare, and go to the doctor, but they can’t afford to have them show them to vote. This is the kind of fighting fire with fire you can’t stand. You can only have the Democrats use rhetoric not the truth. This tells everyone you aren’t serious about fixing problems.

Bill Clinton’s interview was another media sham. Why can’t he ever ask one question that hasn’t been submitted ahead of time? Wolf had to go down the list as not to get Bill off his rehearsed track. The one time someone ask him a question out of order he left the interview in a rant. This is how he and Obama must conduct interviews. Obama’s press conference wasn’t truthful, he could only ask questions by number so his teleprompter would be in sync. This is how dumb he really is. He gave up his law license before they took it away. What an honest man?

tatboy said:
He had 60

Besides the 60 vote requirement, used a hithertobefore unheard number of times, the judge appointment blocks, the foreign service appointment blocks, and other Obama appointment blocks, more records, the repubs other game has been stalling. In my opinion the people gave Obama some kind of mandate to impliment the policies he campaigned on into law. But no. So fine, but don’t blame Obama. This stalemate was a conscious decision made by the repubs. Real hard core stuff. You better pray the people do not come to know that, through haze of corporate funded disinformation, because they are going to blame somebody in November, but it may not be Obama.

Michael T. Obama will never raise taxes on the rich. He and his Democratic senators are the rich. The very rich only draw capital gains. IF Obama really wants to raise income, then have him raise the capital gains taxes. MSM keeps saying that the rich don’t mind paying more income taxes. Raise their captial gains taxes and see how they react. People like Gates, Buffet and Soros will cry in public. They don’t recieve regular income, just captial gains.

Wow Valk. I guess you don’t remember senator Obama blocking everything he could when Bush was president. He said he was told to and had to. He is being told by his czars what to do and has to. This looks like a pattern he won’t ever break. He says he wants to raise taxes when he talks to poor and middle class. Do you suppose at the $35,000 per plate dinners he says I will raise your taxes, just make sure to give me the money now?

I guess you all missed the Obama budget vote. He didn’t get one vote in the senate, not one Democrat voted with him. This I am sure you will blame the Republicians for too. The Democrats had 2 years to submit a budget and never did. You blame the Republicians for not trying. The Ryan budget got 40 votes. I would imagine you didn’t see this. You say that the Republician’s will throw grandma off the cliff, but you don’t say that the $500 billion that Obama will take out of Medicare will throw many grandma’s off the cliff. I guess you didn’t listen to Nancy when she said,’ pass the bill and we will tell you what is in it’.

valkyrie101 said:
Besides the 60 vote requirement, used a hithertobefore unheard number of times, the judge appointment blocks, the foreign service appointment blocks, and other Obama appointment blocks, more records, the repubs other game has been stalling. In my opinion the people gave Obama some kind of mandate to impliment the policies he campaigned on into law. But no. So fine, but don’t blame Obama. This stalemate was a conscious decision made by the repubs. Real hard core stuff. You better pray the people do not come to know that, through haze of corporate funded disinformation, because they are going to blame somebody in November, but it may not be Obama.

All I’m saying is that at one time he had 60. You said he didn’t. I was just making a statement of fact. BTW… what were the #’s in the house and senate Bush II had to deal with during his 8 years. Did he ever have Obama’s majority #’s?

valkyrie101 said:
Besides the 60 vote requirement, used a hithertobefore unheard number of times, the judge appointment blocks, the foreign service appointment blocks, and other Obama appointment blocks, more records, the repubs other game has been stalling. In my opinion the people gave Obama some kind of mandate to impliment the policies he campaigned on into law. But no. So fine, but don’t blame Obama. This stalemate was a conscious decision made by the repubs. Real hard core stuff. You better pray the people do not come to know that, through haze of corporate funded disinformation, because they are going to blame somebody in November, but it may not be Obama.

You think the Dems didn’t block?

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

Clinton is absolutely right on every point. For the last 30 years the richest elites and corporations have successfully enriched themselves by using the GOP and republican politicians to wage class warfare agains the middle and lower classes on this nation. They did so by creating legislation that favors their greedy self interests through fleecing the middle class and redistributing the nation’s wealth upwards to line their pockets.

You’d have to be a right winger to think that it is OK to screw over the middle class like republicans have done since Ronald Reagan and also have the skewed view that forcing these same wealthy elites and robber barons to pay their fare share in taxes is somehow class warfare.

2012freedom said:
Obama had the White House, the House and Senate for 2 years but yet it is still the oppositions fault? Seriously, do you read what you type?

I did not type that. That was Valkryie.

So rich corporate CEOs are always only Republicans? How did this come about? Are Democrats just not as ambitious, or as smart, or what? It does seem odd that only Republicans ever get rich.

Class warfare? Really Bill? Clinton has become so very divisive in the last few years. I also believe that this is the true Bill Clinton and not the moderate we know as the former POTUS. It’s a good thing that the republicans put a leash on this guy when he was president effectively forcing him to stay in the middle. If Clinton moved to the left, like he was attempting to do in his first two years, he would of ended up as another Jimmy Carter.

The simple truth is that anytime Government starts picking ‘Winners and Losers’ the economy suffers; and when our economy suffers ‘We the People’ suffer too.

We Can solve this, but nothing will be fixed unless we recognize the real economic effects of Government intervention in our economy. To get out of this hole, we need to restructure the tax code to allow rational economic decisions based on true market forces, not ideology or political policy.

No one, and I mean No one on earth understands the US tax code.The US Tax Code is now 71,684 pages long, with over 60,000, thats Sixty Thousand Deductions. Many of those deductions are pay-offs and bribes of one form or another, intended to pay you for doing what the government wants, or punish you if you do not.

We need to replace the current Tax Code with something like the FAIR TAX, and we need to drastically reduce the hidden taxes placed on us all by our high Corporate tax rates, because the reality is Corporations do not pay taxes, and they never have. They just collect the money from Us.

The Class War ended decades ago, this is the occupation.

tatboy said:
ll I’m saying is that at one time he had 60. You said he didn’t.

As a practical matter, he was blocked using every conceivable method. Come on.

Ha. Ok. That was good.

valkyrie101 said:
Obama was blocked cold by the republican 60 vote requirement. Correct?

Not on everything. After all, he got the healthScare bill passed and his worthless “jobs” bill.

tatboy said:
You think the Dems didn’t block? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

Seriously, the repubs have used it far more often. “Death panels”? But the point is, we have a stalemate, and nothing gets done until one party has a strong majority. So its winner take all in November 2012. Either the republicans blow open a Congressional majority and the presidency, as a mandate to put into play any Constitutional aspect of their agenda, or vice versa with the Dems winning everything. Are you good with that, or when you lose big are you going to continue whining?

And to be fair, I think the tea party should be allowed to participate as a third party candidate. Palin/Blumberg 2012.

Just when you think that Bill Clinton had become a mensch and would actually not be a moron, he goes out and opens his pisk and shows why we hated his guts thoroughly during the 1990s.

GoneFishing said:
Your post is an excellent example of the Progressive totalitarian mindset, and why it fails in America. This is Not a dictatorship…yet, no matter how much you wish it was. No one party gets to dictate policy without regard to the opposition, but the Progressives sure do try.

Yes, my post is an excellent example of the progressive mindset — it’s full of facts and to people like you, the Tea Stooges variety, facts are like kryptonite to Superman..

It just seems to me that the Republicans want the poor, ie low income to sacrifice the most when it comes to balancing the budget. This is especially true of Medicaid. BTW please don’t tell me of welfare cheats, lazy people. Sure there are. However one can work and earn up to a certain point, money and still legally get Medicaid, Foodstamps, Social Security Disability or Social Security Supplemental Income. SSD , SSI. However one can’t collect both. Below is from a Yahoo group for disability rights.
Rep Boehner, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, has a key leadership role
in figuring out how to lead America out of the fiscal crisis and towards
sustainable economic health. Most people would not envy someone attempting such
a complex political task. However, we do feel that Rep Boehner does have the
ability and responsibility to make good decisions about
our country’s fiscal health, and to make these decisions without unduly
affecting the 49 million poor American children, seniors, people with
disabilities and pregnant women who need Medicaid services because there is no
other option.

There is a way forward in Medicaid, but it is not about cuts. Instead, we
strongly believe that the way to save money in Medicaid is to spend less money
on institutional and nursing facility long term care, and to invest those
dollars in home and community based supports, which cost far less per person.
The costs of institutional long term care drive Medicaid spending
higher year by year, and we can keep this down by investing dollars to support
more people in their own homes, which is where most people really want to be
able to live. We want to be able to live with our families, and to age in our
own homes.

Alice67 said:
Even tho Obama’s ratings are in the 40’s congress has an approval rating of 18%. As things stand today, Obama is the least likely to be blamed. The American people are seeing what Republicans are doing with the control they have gained at the state level and they don’t like it one bit. Their overreach will probably do them in once again.

Polls do not really mean that much when a single positive event can jump the polls for a President by 20 points over night. Polls will mean more during 2012. Lincoln’s prospects for re-election looked quite bleak, but a couple of decent war reports and he crushed his opponent. Obama will do the same. Its the beanpole effect.

artemesia said:
It just seems to me that the Republicans want the poor, ie low income to sacrifice the most when it comes to balancing the budget. This is especially true of Medicaid. BTW please don’t tell me of welfare cheats, lazy people. Sure there are. However one can work and earn up to a certain point, money and still legally get Medicaid, Foodstamps, Social Security Disability or Social Security Supplemental Income. SSD , SSI. However one can’t collect both. Below is from a Yahoo group for disability rights.
Rep Boehner, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, has a key leadership role
in figuring out how to lead America out of the fiscal crisis and towards
sustainable economic health. Most people would not envy someone attempting such
a complex political task. However, we do feel that Rep Boehner does have the
ability and responsibility to make good decisions about
our country’s fiscal health, and to make these decisions without unduly
affecting the 49 million poor American children, seniors, people with
disabilities and pregnant women who need Medicaid services because there is no
other option.

There is a way forward in Medicaid, but it is not about cuts. Instead, we
strongly believe that the way to save money in Medicaid is to spend less money
on institutional and nursing facility long term care, and to invest those
dollars in home and community based supports, which cost far less per person.
The costs of institutional long term care drive Medicaid spending
higher year by year, and we can keep this down by investing dollars to support
more people in their own homes, which is where most people really want to be
able to live. We want to be able to live with our families, and to age in our
own homes.

So whats with the ‘We’ crap…Who’s We. You have a frog in your pocket> or did you cut an paste this trash.

We may have a spending problem
http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK880_1fedbu_NS_20100126192500.gif

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

valkyrie101 said:
And to be fair, I think the tea party should be allowed to participate as a third party candidate. Palin/Blumberg 2012.

Progressive 3rd party plz. Bloomberg/Weiner

valkyrie101 said:
Seriously, the repubs have used it far more often. “Death panels”

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/28/obamacares-advisory-board-could-be-a-real-killer

Worp said:
Progressive 3rd party plz. Bloomberg/Weiner

OK. We’ll put Sarah together with my personal favorite, Guliani, and run four parties.

Worp said:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/28/obamacares-advisory-board-could-be-a-real-killer

The only thing you need to fear is fear itself.

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obviously none of the stimulous money went to the corporate honchos because they require 8 figures, not 6.

Democans or Republicrats, the fix is in. Both parties are bought and paid for by the wealthy, because they have the money with which to do it. President Obama may talk a good game about taxing the rich, but his actions do not match his rhetoric. In his run for the presidency in 2007-8, he put together a campaign chest of $750,000,000, and the total of receipts of both parties came to $1,325,631,802 (not counting independent expenditures) . Somehow, I don’t think this money came from everyday Americans. When presented with an opportunity to extend the Bush tax cuts during the lame duck session in December of 2010, he extended them for 2 years. All that had to be done was allow them to expire and we would not be discussing them now. Instead, both parties got a basket of goodies desired by their constituents and the deficit got larger, not smaller.
During his “scolding” speech, he mentioned tax breaks for corporate jets 6 times. If reporting on the subject is correct, this particular tax break consists of writing off the cost of a jet in 7 years rather than the current 5, and will generate at grand total of $3 billion dollars over 10 years, or an average of $300 million a year. This amount is not a rounding error on either the yearly deficit or the national debt.

Bill Adkins said:
Yes, my post is an excellent example of the progressive mindset — it’s full of facts and to people like you, the Tea Stooges variety, facts are like kryptonite to Superman..

Lol, as usual you facts lead you no where. The Progressive Caucus has been in power for 4 years. In 07 they refused to but restrictions on Fanny-Mae and Freddy Mac resulting in a melt down of the real-estate markets. I am no fan of Bush, but Bush Did tr to get proper underwriting standards once again implemented. But Bush and the Republicans were blocked with Bwarny Fwank and Chris Dodd leading the attack on the banks. So how did that work out…

You said “Exactly, the minority does have the power to stop legislation — and that’s EXACTLY what the Republicans have done since 2007 and the Dems did from the Moment Bush took office, but don’t let that reality get in your way. Whats good for the goose…

The Republicans used the tools available to them as Minority Opposition in the Senate (as I stated in my original post) in the same manner Democrats used that power when they were the Minority. That is the structure of the Senate.

You Said: Oh, and Bush used his veto 12 times in two terms, 11 times 2007-2009.” Now the facts. You say that like Mean o’l bush was a Veto machene stifeling the Will of the Majority. That is just not true by any measure. President Bush used the Veto Pen Far less than any Presiden in modern History but one. When President Bush had been in office 1,889 days, he had signed 1,091 bills and had vetoed none. Setting a 200-year record, and becoming the most veto-less President since the early 1900s. The last President to exercise no vetoes at all was James Garfield, who held office only six months before being shot. Bill Clinton BTW, had 37 Vetos.

You said “he Democrats having only a 1 seat majority in the senate 2007-2009 and 2009-1/2010 they were cowardly and didn’t use the 60 seat majority they had.”

The Democrats were not ‘Cowardly’ the Progressives pushed hard, but some Dem’s still put America First… Remember, THoise were the ones the DNC turned their back on, and MM, Hufpo and Kos attacked. The Republicans took their seats…THat is not the Republicans fault, it is the Progressive inability to find compromise that was at fault..and still is.

That Statesman ship is no longer seen in Washington or the Senate is true, but your argument is not in favor of statesmanship. Quite the opposite; You lament the inability of Progressives to pass legislation by force. That is not a ‘Problem’ but the AMerican Way… and why the Progressive mindset has no place in American Politics.

I remember a time when our President and members of Congress and the Senate understood they were Americans first…and put Party second. Sadly that is no longer true. Your attempt to show that because the Dems only had a one seat majority, which they used to block President Bush whenever they could, but was still insufficient to pass any bill they would like, is laughable. That you bemoan a failed supra-majority is funnier still.

Perhaps if progressives want more bills passed with their names on them, they should try looking outside the bubble and include others in the process, rather than reporting results before the votes are in. But thats the difference between Governing and Dictating…Progressives never seem to get that.

It will never happen because Republicans are afraid to take away tax breaks for people who own yachts, lear jets and multiple homes.

I like how everyone is always throwing around the term ‘class warfare.’ Anytime someone tries to enact ideas or policies that will strengthen the middle-class, they are charged with engaging in class warfare; Anytime politicians cut taxes for the wealthy and the middle-class shrinks, they are charged with class warfare. This is a theoretical war right now but it will eventually turn literal, and it’s not going to be the literal in the sense that a policy has been enacted that has a significant affect on Americans financially.

The top wealth holders need to keep in mind that Americans easily have more firearms per capita than any other country and when it finally hits the fan and the poor get fed up, the top 3 percent will have no chance against the bottom 97. Once this happens, feel free to throw around the term as there will be an actual ‘class war.’

Yoda002 said:
It will never happen because Republicans are afraid to take away tax breaks for people who own yachts, lear jets and multiple homes.

Sorry to bust the bubble, but the Jet exemption was all Obama, Pelosi and Reid…No republican had anything to do with it.

Don’t let facts get in the way tho, head on back to the fantasy…maybe the Unicorn’s are around the next corner.

fluffhead22 said:
I like how everyone is always throwing around the term ‘class warfare.’ Anytime someone tries to enact ideas or policies that will strengthen the middle-class, they are charged with engaging in class warfare; Anytime politicians cut taxes for the wealthy and the middle-class shrinks, they are charged with class warfare. This is a theoretical war right now but it will eventually turn literal, and it’s not going to be the literal in the sense that a policy has been enacted that has a significant affect on Americans financially.

The top wealth holders need to keep in mind that Americans easily have more firearms per capita than any other country and when it finally hits the fan and the poor get fed up, the top 3 percent will have no chance against the bottom 97. Once this happens, feel free to throw around the term as there will be an actual ‘class war.’

You may not like this, but Corporate taxes are an attack on the middle class too.

Where do you think the Corporation gets the money to Pay those taxes?

Danny Ross said:
Democans or Republicrats, the fix is in. Both parties are bought and paid for by the wealthy, because they have the money with which to do it

That part is true, you got off to a good start.

valkyrie101 said:
Polls do not really mean that much when a single positive event can jump the polls for a President by 20 points over night. Polls will mean more during 2012. Lincoln’s prospects for re-election looked quite bleak, but a couple of decent war reports and he crushed his opponent. Obama will do the same. Its the beanpole effect.

Yes, just ignore that bin Laden thing.

Bids said:
Yes, just ignore that bin Laden thing.

I can’t, that was too cool. Special Forces are America’s edge.

valkyrie101 said:
The only thing you need to fear is fear itself.

…and the IRS

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

It is like his theory on what the definition of IS………….IS!

Do not describe it what IT actually IS, describe it as something COMPLETELY warped like lawyers and Bill (THE RAPIST) Clinton would like to describe it as.

Let me say this again!!!!!!!

You could tax everyone making over $100K at 100% and only get $900 Billion. What are you going to do for the other $700 Billion?

I swear, Communists…………erm Democrats work at a 1st grade level of mathematics. They still think that if you add two oranges and two apples you get four hookers.

Yoda002 said:
It will never happen because Republicans are afraid to take away tax breaks for people who own yachts, lear jets and multiple homes.

Like John Kerry who tried to aroids the taxes on his yacht?

valkyrie101 said:
Seriously, the repubs have used it far more often. “Death panels”? But the point is, we have a stalemate, and nothing gets done until one party has a strong majority. So its winner take all in November 2012. Either the republicans blow open a Congressional majority and the presidency, as a mandate to put into play any Constitutional aspect of their agenda, or vice versa with the Dems winning everything. Are you good with that, or when you lose big are you going to continue whining?

Didn’t the Dems show a commercial with grandma being thrown off a cliff?

Bill Clinton: Media Shouldn’t Be Describing Budget Battle As ‘Class Warfare’

Certain segments of the “media” are only doing so because the Democrats are doing so. That’s how one determines which are in the tank for the Democrats.

So, despite the fact that Obama continually engages in class warfare, it is unkind to call it what it is? Just because he has a propensity for pitting Americans against one another, we should give him a pass? I guess divisiveness is now an accepted political tool. Are those in the media supposed to come up with a new euphemism?

Bill Clinton: Media Shouldn’t Be Describing Budget Battle As ‘Class Warfare’
——————————————————————————————————–

Blah, blah, blah…and they shouldn’t be attributing the economic success of the 90′s to anything you did, either! — but they do that all of the time, too!

NonElite said:
So, despite the fact that Obama continually engages in class warfare, it is unkind to call it what it is? Just because he has a propensity for pitting Americans against one another, we should give him a pass? I guess divisiveness is now an accepted political tool. Are those in the media supposed to come up with a new euphemism?

The rank dishonesty of the Progressive Left is what will fundamentally bring them down. It’s already happening within the Democratic Party – only this time it’s not over policy, but over philosophy!

Democrats = Group “Victimization”, Government Dependency & Control

Tea-Party GOP = Personal Responsibility, Family Support & Independence!

and, btw, Happy Independence Day! – both now, and on November 8, 2012.

tatboy said:
Didn’t the Dems show a commercial with grandma being thrown off a cliff?

I have already agreed that both parties are unreasonable, but that has nothing to do with the point of my post. I asked:

“But the point is, we have a stalemate, and nothing gets done until one party has a strong majority. So its winner take all in November 2012. Either the republicans blow open a Congressional majority and the presidency, as a mandate to put into play any Constitutional aspect of their agenda, or vice versa with the Dems winning everything. Are you good with that, or when you lose big are you going to continue whining?”

I agree with that I was addressing your “death panel” argument that Repubs do things Dems don’t. They BOTH do the SAME things with vigor. Anyone who says other wise is wrong. BOTH sides use scare tactics and lie while doing it. As to the other argument… of course. That’s always been the case. The only time in my life it wasn’t was the 90′s with triangulation. A Repub house and senate… and a Dem in the WH.

tatboy said:
I agree with that I was addressing your “death panel” argument that Repubs do things Dems don’t. They BOTH do the SAME things with vigor. Anyone who says other wise is wrong. BOTH sides use scare tactics and lie while doing it. As to the other argument… of course. That’s always been the case. The only time in my life it wasn’t was the 90’s with triangulation. A Repub house and senate… and a Dem in the WH.

Not what I asked:

“But the point is, we have a stalemate, and nothing gets done until one party has a strong majority. So its winner take all in November 2012. Either the republicans blow open a Congressional majority and the presidency, as a mandate to put into play any Constitutional aspect of their agenda, or vice versa with the Dems winning everything. Are you good with that, or when you lose big are you going to continue whining?”

“The top wealth holders need to keep in mind that Americans easily have more firearms per capita than any other country and when it finally hits the fan and the poor get fed up, the top 3 percent will have no chance against the bottom 97. Once this happens, feel free to throw around the term as there will be an actual ‘class war.”

WHAT 97%?
With an evenly divided electorate between the conservatives and liberals, there would really only be a very small percentage of entitlement entrenched ‘looters’ among the liberal base (those that are truly fearful of losing their state sponsored ‘income’). The reality is that the vast majority of left leaning policy voters — the liberals that might accurately be called ‘progressives’ would never ‘riot’ as you imply.