No other President has ever had a deficit as high as it is now. Your own cite says so -
Regards,
Shodan
Nearly all of the 2009 deficit was due to Bush’s policies (and Bush was in office for the first quarter of the fiscal year). This statement would apply to whoever would have won the 2008 election, because most of that deficit was already going to happen no matter what before inauguration.
So Obama can truthfully say that under his leadership the deficit has dropped by about 2/3rds, from a high brought about almost entirely by Bush’s policies.
This question is a trap, and I won’t fall for it.
I didn’t say Obama never ACHIEVED any progressive goals, that was rendered almost impossible by the presence of Blue Dog democrats like Ben Nelson in his Senate majority. I’m saying he never TRIED, with the possible exception of health care. On most proposals, Obama bragged that he STARTED negotiations by giving Republicans 90 percent of what they asked for. That’s not trying.
If they don’t have the votes to override a veto, the law stays.
We’ve already cut the fat and are working on bone and muscle. It isn’t unreasonable to continually accelerate the flow of wealth to the wealthy.
Funny how that discrimination still happened. the 1938 law obviously wasn’t strong enough. One would think that it would be a bipartisan favorite.
Saint Ronald of Reagan said there is a free lunch and we’re going to eat it. The program is paid for by undoing some of the needless tax breaks we give the elite.
As Steve MG pointed out in post #54, many more voters voted for the minimum wage hike than for Mark Pryor, which points to the correctness of my theory. Voters are more progressive than Democratic Washington leaders. This spells bad news for centrist Democrats in 2016.
If you don’t believe your own cite, why did you post it?
Regards,
Shodan
I am fully aware of the political reality of the vote count. I still think that if one can call a Republican Congress “obstructionist” for not bowing to the will of the President, then it’s equally fair to say that the President, if he carries through with the veto threats, is obstructing the will of the people. Elections have consequences, remember?
Really? There’s nothing else that can legitimately be cut from the federal budget? I disagree.
Take for example, the minimum wage. It applies equally to both male and female workers. Enforce the laws that exist. We don’t need another feel-good law to restate the obvious.
One can argue about the specifics of a particular tax break, but labeling them “needless tax breaks for the elite” is ridiculous. Non-elite people enjoy the same tax breaks.
My own cite supports my statement. You can play semantic games and pretend this is about something besides which President is to blame for which deficits, but that’s what it’s about – Bush is “to blame” for the 2009 deficit (as far as any President can be blamed), and Obama is “to blame” for the subsequent deficits. He’ll be “to blame” for the 2017 deficit (assuming it exists).
Ok then make a suggestion. Republicans are good for demanding generic spending cuts, but when you ask them to propose specific cuts they have nothing. They don’t want to pay the political price for actually cutting any programs. So please, be specific. If you are certain about this, then give us a list of things you want cut, and how much money each will save on the budget.
Put up something specific, otherwise the mindless chants of cut, cut, cut, will be given exactly the attention it deserves. None.
The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges…
How it is a “trap” to ask which of Obama’s proposals you agree with?
[shrug] A president gets to claim an electoral mandate of the whole people, independent of Congress’ mandate, for his whole term. That’s the presidential system for ya – if you don’t like it, go parliamentary.
In any case, no POTUS is obliged, constitutionally or otherwise, to change course in response to midterm results. You know that, man – W was in these same shoes in 2007.
Life is mostly free lunches, actually. Did you make the world you were born into? Did you build your mother’s womb? Or the school where you learned to read? Or the rich cultural and scientific heritage they tried to teach you there?
Erm, from the dictionary?
Congress constitutionally gets to obstruct the president (and vice-versa). That does not mean it is not obstruction.
Historically, those usually turn out to be a Very Bad Idea.
If there are roughly 200,000 “progressives” who voted for the minimum wage increase, but not Mark Pryor, for which candidate did those 200,000 voters cast their ballot?
Are you contending that 200,000 progressives voted for Tea Party-endorsed candidate Tom Cotton? If so, your theory is laughable.
Possibly none; one can always leave a given ballot-line blank.
Oh my fucking ghod.
Really?
If you read my previous posts, I show that just as many votes were counted in the Senate race as they were in the ballot initiative.