President Obama has the negotiating skills of Melvin from Jack and the Beanstalk...

[originalpckelly]

You never heard about Melvin, Jack's older brother, do you know why?
He lost the negotiations with the author to even be in the story.
When he went out with some money, he came back with two pinto beans.
They weren't magical, they didn't grow some awesome beanstalk, and they weren't even enough to feed the family.
Melvin was kind of a dip shit.
No one wants to hear that story.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Gee. Implying that the President is a dipshit. Very nice.

[originalpckelly]

2. My memory is not two seconds long.

I still remember how our Melvin managed to wait until the last minute and give the rich their tax breaks, despite saying he wouldn't. This was, of course, because they had two years to deal with the problem, and waited until the last minute, when surprise surprise there was something that the middle class needed: unemployment extensions.

Well, if you drum up a crisis and make it look like the middle class will lose something important, maybe then it will look OK.

He's playing right into the hands of the upper class, a class that's run up a bill and doesn't want to pay it.

BUT IT ISN'T OK!

The rich in this country are literally robber barons, in the old sense of the word.
On the river of unemployment benefits, they held our ship up until we paid a ransom: their tax cuts.
We can get tax cuts for the rich, but we have to cut programs for the poor and middle class.

Calling him a dip shit is being nice.

[Buzz Clik]

3. I get the feeling that you have lost your way.

"Calling him a dip shit is being nice."

Have you considered that you might be in the wrong place?

However, it will be an interesting trial for DU: letting your thread stand will be a declaration that DU has abandoned several of their key rules about attacking Democrats. It will be interesting.

[originalpckelly]

4. I think the guy who's in the wrong place...

is the one who's full of crap.

Obama is on record saying that he was against the tax cuts for the rich, before he was for them, because he and Congress of last year waited too long until there was a sweet spot for the Republicans to strike.

Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich. Why would they even be discussed at the same time?

Ah, yes, but we are meant to forget about this. Our memory is only two seconds long, and we move along to something else, instead of keeping track of what actually happened.

[Buzz Clik]

16. We're aware of your dislike for the President. I was more interested in the sincerity of your insult

I am getting the strong feeling, judging that your thread is still open, that I'm in the wrong place.

I need to find a discussion forum that is friendly to Democrats.

[originalpckelly]

17. No, what you want is a place where everyone mindlessly follows.

We are not the Borg, resistance is not futile.

[Maraya1969]

33. You seem to be following republican talking points mindlessly. Did you even

watch the process the Dems had to go through just to keep Planned Parenthood open in the last couple days? Working through the night the repubs would not give in. It is the same with all the other things you are complaining about.

Obama is not a king. He has huge hurdles to jump to get a progressive idea into law.

[Buzz Clik]

44. +1, but...

... you're wasting energy. This guy is still in Star Trek mode chasing fictional characters.

[Buzz Clik]

51. Good news! I have an image for your sig line!

Englehart is a Connecticut cartoonist and a big fan of Lieberman. When you join the Palin/Lieberman campaign, it can be your campaign button. Awesome.

[originalpckelly]

54. Aw yeah, we're all such Lieberman supporters...

just because we haven't been struck with a case of Obamnesia.

[Buzz Clik]

58. Whomever you may support, I think you'll enjoy that image.

It suits you well.

[leeroysphitz]

61. +1

[bvar22]

68. You're "getting strong feelings" that you're in the wrong place?

Feelings are important.
Don't discount them.

[NYC Liberal]

5. Hm...sounds a lot more like Dennis Kucinich. nt

[originalpckelly]

6. 134?

Is that the number of people who will freeze to death in America for lack of section 8 housing?
Is that the amount of money people on Social Security retirement will be getting under the new plan? Sounds a little high to me, maybe he should pull an Obama and negotiate for more, which is always less.
Oh that single payer healthcare is really coming along nice. Oh wait, it's a public option. Oh wait, it's mandatory purchasing of private freaking expensive healthcare. As if the only problem was that people didn't want to have health insurance.

[NYC Liberal]

7. No, it's 134 rebuttals to the self-defeating whiners

who cry that Obama has broken promises and lost the base.

But that's not the topic of this thread.

[originalpckelly]

8. If you ever have to call people in your own party whiners...

there is something wrong.

Just a hint.

[NYC Liberal]

9. I'm talking about an extreme minority of people.

who are, quite unfortunately, very loud.

And no, they are not "in my own part." The people that is directed at are not among the liberal base of the party.

[originalpckelly]

15. And who are you?

Who made you the final arbiter of who is and who isn't a Democrat?

[NYC Liberal]

20. I could ask the same of you.

It's a good thing I never said anyone wasn't a Democrat.

[originalpckelly]

21. And I'm not a member of the liberal base?

Yeah, I bet.

I think those who are against tax cuts for the rich are a little bit more liberal than those who give them up.

[NYC Liberal]

25. I don't know...are you?

I never said you were or were not. I guess you'll just have to decide for yourself.

[originalpckelly]

11. And those tax cuts for the rich?

Got a rebuttal to those?

Any explanation there on those? I'd like to hear it.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Yes, but I question whether you'd really "like to hear it"

since it's been discussed here many times.

[originalpckelly]

14. What is it then?

Serve it up.

[NYC Liberal]

18. "Serve it up"?

What's the point when you so clearly have your mind set. You aren't going to be persuaded by anything.

[originalpckelly]

19. No, what is your argument?

Do you even have one?

What talking point do you have on that?

Or are we just supposed to conveniently forget that shit?

[NYC Liberal]

23. "What talking point do you have on that?"

Clearly you are not interested in a debate. You just want to attack. You will reject anything that suggests Obama doesn't suck as much as you think he does.

[originalpckelly]

26. No, either put up or shut up.

If you can't explain that away, then don't and admit you cannot.
Or please kindly tell us what excuse, and it would have to be an excuse as it was a direct contradiction of a campaign promise, you have for that.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Sounds like something Bill O'Reilly would say.

Are you going to cut my mic too?

[originalpckelly]

29. Are you going to keep stalling?

We're waiting for an answer.

And while we're on this, how do the tides work? Tides go in, tides go out, can't explain that, can you? :P

Meanwhile, we're all waiting for you to explain to us just why exactly Obama directly contradicted himself on a very important fiscal issue.

[NYC Liberal]

32. It was the price for extending the middle class tax cuts and

unemployment benefits for millions. And yes, the Republicans WOULD have voted against middle class tax cuts on their own. Was it the ideal scenario? No not at all. But the price of simply doing nothing and letting the tax cuts for the rich expire was not extending the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

[originalpckelly]

35. There you go.

In reality, the motherfuckers had two fucking years to take up the issue of extending the tax cuts for the rich and the rest of America, and they did it at the last moment, when they had us over a fucking barrel, because we needed unemployment.

Who was responsible for this? The Democrats were the ones in charge, couldn't they have taken up the issue of the tax cuts earlier on?

How do you explain that?

Two years, or even just a year earlier. And no problem.

Explain that.

[NYC Liberal]

36. And you think the Republicans wouldn't have done

the same things any other time? Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have used every parliamentary stall tactic - including the filibuster any other time? Please, that's just nonsense. They killed a bill that extended only the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits (see: http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/associatedpress4/senate-to-vote-on-democratic-tax-cut-plans/).

[originalpckelly]

37. No, why link the two?

Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with tax cuts for anyone.

And it's called a veto. You veto it, and say that the other side wants something unreasonable, that in a time of a recession we need to take care of those in need, NOT THE FUCKING RICH!

[originalpckelly]

39. And I will note that Article I says nothing about a super majority in the Senate.

The only time a super majority is required to move something through either house is after the President vetoes something.

It's a rule the Senators came up with, not a constitutional requirement.

In fact, it might actually be unconstitutional, because it screws up the system the framers intended.

[NYC Liberal]

40. Well then the Republicans would simply filibuster two bills

instead of one. Great strategizing there.

And OK, you veto it. Do you think the Republicans would have given two shits if Obama had vetoed the bill and said what they wanted was unreasonable? No, they wouldn't have. The price of not extending the tax cuts for the rich was no extension of the tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits. I -- and most people -- would rather have tax cuts for the middle class and continued unemployment benefits at the price of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, than no middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits but also no tax cuts for the rich.

[originalpckelly]

47. Well, most people have no idea how badly they're getting fucked.

Most people don't know that 1% of people in our fair country control 38% of the wealth. Or that the top 10% controls 71% of it. Or that 50% controls less than 1%.

If most people knew that, I think they'd be as outraged as I am that any rich person would come calling for a tax break.

And I'd like to note that the majority of the people on unemployment were there because of a recession caused by the greed of the rich in our country.

[NYC Liberal]

52. "any rich person would come calling for a tax break"

I think most people ARE outraged about the uber rich having the temerity to demand tax cuts.

The problem is, the fucking Republicans were willing to hold the middle class hostage to get those tax cuts. Any sane/decent folks left that party a long time ago.

[originalpckelly]

53. But you're making the argument that AMERICA as a whole would have been pissed.

If he had come on national TV and explained those numbers to Americans, they would have been incensed.

The numbers don't bear out that 1/2 of America is being served by tax cuts for the rich. Income and net worth are different things, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the people who make a lot of money are also the ones who are wealthy.

There's a huge problem here: the rich ran up a big fucking bill, and they want to stick the middle class/and even the poor with it.

[NYC Liberal]

56. But the problem is that the price of refusing to

extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich was NOT extending the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

The price of getting those middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits was, unfortunately, a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans blocked the bill that didn't include those tax cuts for the rich.

While I think people DON'T want tax cuts for the rich, they are not willing to give up tax cuts for millions more.

There's a huge problem here: the rich ran up a big fucking bill, and they want to stick the middle class/and even the poor with it.

There's no doubt about that.

[originalpckelly]

57. That became the price, because of their poor planning.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[Divernan]

27. I declare originalpckelly the winner in this thread's debate!

Although it's really a stretch to call it a debate. We'll wait until hell freezes over to get the justification for the extended tax cuts for the uber wealthy.

[sufrommich]

31. The one year extension of the tax cuts was made in

exchange for extending unemployment benefits for millions of people.

[originalpckelly]

34. And why did they wait until unemployment was coming up for renewal?

They had TWO FUCKING YEARS to deal with that shit, and they waited until the last minute, when OH MY GOD poor and middle class people needed their unemployment insurance renewed.

The rich people held us up until we paid a ransom to be released. That's almost the fucking definition of a robber baron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron

They abused their positions by stopping passing merchant ships and demanding tolls without being authorized by the Holy Roman Emperor to do so. Often iron chains were stretched across the river to prevent passage without paying the toll, and strategic towers were built to facilitate this.

Replace merchant ship with unemployment benefits, and toll with tax cuts for the rich, and you got yourselves a bunch of fucking robber barons.

Would you even explain to me how the two are related in any way?

Tax cuts for the rich
Unemployment

How are they related?

[sufrommich]

45. Hmmmm, I remember Obama trying to end the Bush tax cuts

and not having the 60 votes needed in the senate,don't you?

[originalpckelly]

50. There are 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass legislation?

Show me in this US Constitution where it says that:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I

It doesn't say that, you now.

It's a rule, one not mentioned in the US Constitution. It's actually an unconstitutional requirement to pass legislation.

Only when a President vetoes something does it need to have more than 51 votes to pass.

In fact it specifically says "equally divided" in there:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

I was unaware that 60 was half of 100. Sorry about that.

[eilen]

49. I believe the tax cut was a 2 Year extension 2010-2012

for 1 Year of unemployment extension 2010-2011

AWESOME Negotiator we have here.

He'll trade 4 dollars for 4 quarters.

[Little Star]

22. I've seen the 134 list and pssssst.........

it includes things like promised not to burn the toast in the morning. That list is a joke. I could make up one similar and just as about good about my grandson.

Where's the beef?
Not on that list.

[originalpckelly]

24. Well, he promised to walk the dog.

I think he did that, right?

[Divernan]

30. Where IS that list? O's supporters aren't big on links, are they?

[NYC Liberal]

42. It's at Politifact.com. There's this nifty thing called Google. nt

[Divernan]

55. It's not nice to be snarky about being asked for a link.

And of course, you can tell from the times of my posts that I had already found the link, no thanks to you, and had researched it and prepared a lengthy post.

[NYC Liberal]

59. Perhaps if it wasn't for your "I declare originalpckelly the winner!" post

you may have gotten less snark.

[Divernan]

48. Found list of 500 campaign promises: more broken/stalled/delayed than kept

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter /

Here's some biggies:

Promise #15. Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. PROMISE BROKEN

"With millions of homeowners still struggling to stay in their homes, the Obama administration"s $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has been weakened, perhaps fatally, by lax oversight and a posture of cooperation—rather than enforcement—with the nation's biggest banks," ProPublica reported. "Those banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, service the majority of mortgages."

The special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil M. Barofsky, penned a damning op-ed in the New York Times, calling the housing program "a colossal failure," blaming a lack of enforcement on the part of the U.S. Treasury Department.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has acknowledged that the program ‘won't come close' to fulfilling its original expectations, that its incentives are not ‘powerful enough' and that the mortgage servicers are ‘still doing a terribly inadequate job,;" Barofsky wrote. "But Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no material change, effectively assuring that Treasury's most specific Main Street promise will not be honored."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No. 446: Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies PROMISE BROKEN

The Promise: "Will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record-breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities. The rebates would be fully paid for with five years of a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits."

Update March 16th, 2011:Three budget plans, no proposals for windfall profits tax, PROMISE BROKEN
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No. 45: Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses

The Promise: "Protect the jobs and benefits of workers and retirees when corporations file for bankruptcy by telling companies that they cannot issue bonuses for executives during bankruptcy while their workers watch their pensions disappear."

Update January 25th, 2011:
No sign of action on promise about executive bonuses PROMISE BROKEN
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________






Original Message
I've seen the 134 list and pssssst.........
Posted by Little Star

[leeroysphitz]

62. + everything

[dennis4868]

10. The facts are...

The repubs/tea party wanted double the amount of spending cuts and all those crazy riders which were not part of the agreement....don't see how he is a bad negotiater....someone who gives some (and takes some) during a negotiation is not a bad negotiator...this is how negotiation works...unfortunately the standards here is that if Obama gives into anything, he's a bad negotiator...got news for you, repubs are very relevant in the House whether we like it or not...therefore there needs to be a give and take, which is what happened here.

[originalpckelly]

13. If I want to kill you...

you don't negotiate on the method by which it will happen, because it's not a reasonable request.

[Iris]

46. good point

[dennis4868]

63. Unless you agree something needs to happen....

Obama, like many other responsible progressives, believe that some cuts need to be made, smart spending cuts but not ones that will stop economic growth (which is what the repubs wanted).

[originalpckelly]

64. The only reason we are in this position is that rich are so rich.

I guarantee you most of the programs that will be cut are like that because people are not being paid enough to provide for themselves, because someone is taxing them.

[Motown_Johnny]

38. and what are your plans for having the debt ceiling raised?

Since you seem to be thinking so far ahead....


Oh, what's that? No idea how to do that?!?!?


Maybe the President was thinking ahead and creating enough political capital to win the next fight.

Have you considered that possibility?



(and Jack traded a cow for the magic beans, dunno where Melvin got money from)

[originalpckelly]

41. I would like to know why he would want to make the problem even worse...

by not dramatically raising taxes on the rich. We probably wouldn't have to even consider raising the debt ceiling if the rich would pay up instead of taking all these services from the government and then expecting someone else to pay for them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

65. +1!!!

[Search4Justice]

67. That's the elephant in the room...

... that so many wearing blinders can't see. At this point, it seems to be a willful blindness by all Rethugs and a good many Dems.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. How about ending some wars instead of declaring war on the neediest and poorest here?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

66. Ahhhhhh

Give me the good old days when elected democrats actually fought for the ideals of the people that they took an oath to represent