Do you know anyone who got relief from the government for underwater mortgages? I know plenty of banks that got relief from the government for underwater mortgages, but no actual homeowners. If billions are being spent for this purpose, where the fuck is my share? I haven’t gotten a dime, and my house is worth literally 25% of its appraised value at the time I bought it.
A cheap shot.
No, it isn’t. And the SDMB would be well served if you could see that and change.
Regards,
Shodan
Now, that’s funny.
I disagree. The fact that he gave this speech to Congress was just theater. It was a televised speech, aimed at us. And he looked not only angry, but irritated. Like he was pissed that he had to give the speech in the first place. It put me off.
That’s what I liked about it; I am angry and irritated.
Oh get off it. You’re better than that. I’d expect partisan trolling like that from Beck or Limbaugh.
“You should pass this bill right away” means exactly that. There is nothing in there that they all have not voted for in the past, many times repeatedly. They can discuss it all they like, but he is making it clear he expects action and not more bickering. Even a negative vote would be preferable to endless squabbling and stalling, which has been the order of the day for way too long. He is offering them their favorite foods and few old standards on a new plate. There is no reason for them to argue about it, either eat it or tip it into the bin. Just make a decision. Obviously he’d prefer to have it passed, but he is demanding a response.
We’ve seen enough of the conciliatory Obama. At last we have evidence of vertebrae. That can’t bitch that he didn’t tell them what he wants, he will send them an actual bill. They can’t call it radical since much of it is popular with both parties. Of course, given that they call Obamacare a “takeover of the health care system” with a straight face, they’ll find a reason to gut it. If they vote it down, they hand the election to him. If they approve it, things improve and he wins anyway.
There was a lot of great stuff there for republicans and democrats, but it skewed so heavily towards the republican wishes and desires, I really do maintain my opinion that Obama is shaping up to be a great republican president. Of course, the republicans just keep pulling him further and further to the right. If he stays around until 2016 he might just be another Reagan or Bush!
Do not acuse other posters of trolling outside The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
This is inappropriate for Great Debates - it’s insulting and you can’t accuse other users of trolling in this forum. Don’t do this again.
I think that was the point. He is providing a bill that has extremely little to object to in it and demanding action. It isn’t a trap, but it puts the republicans in a tough position. If they continue with the scorched earth policy, it makes them look stubbourn and pig headed, if they shoot it down he can point out that they aren’t even passing legislation they wrote and vote for in the past. Their best bet is to pass it and hope it fails miserably in action. If it does good they can crow about how they held out until the left "saw reason: or some such nonsense and just absorb the lunatic fringe who will get mad that they voted for anything Obama proposed.
News reports this morning say that Obama is getting at least a tentative thumbs up from economists on the plan, which is a good thing. We’ll see what he can get through Congress.
You know, Der Trihs, I have agreed with you a lot on these boards, often when few others would. But when you respond to a complaint that arguments that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is called a racist, by playing the racist card, you do no one any good. The correct response would be to cite some fact or figure indicating that illegal immigration is not the cause of our job woes, and then to challenge the person you are responding to to come up with some fact or figure that supports their contention. If they can’t or won’t, THEN you can point out that all that is left in the way of “argument” is racism.
It does not follow. Things could be much worse in the U.S., and it would still be a much better place for ambitious Third World people than a lot of Latin American countries.
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
(The Republicans) best bet is to pass it and hope it fails miserably in action.
[/QUOTE]
Not in my opinion. Their best bet is to do exactly what Obama doesn’t want them to do - ask hard questions about it like “how exactly do we pay for it, what specifically do you want to cut so it doesn’t jack up the deficit even higher, and what makes you think that $450 billion will do what $787 billion didn’t?”
Why on earth does Obama think the political process should get easier for him after his party loses its control of Congress?
Regards,
Shodan
Why don’t you want ambitious people? Ambitious people are good for the economy, I thought.
Because it worked for Clinton? The 2010 election vastly improved the president’s hopes of reelection. iMO
Wait, so now you don’t want to cut stuff?
Better that than the supporters of a party that just says “no” and actively impairs government performance for their ideological ends. A party whose leader in the Senate apparently thinks his highest priority in office is getting rid of Barack Obama.
Which makes another Republican’s claim about treason in office ironic.