Just to clarify, he’s proposed cuts that his supporters oppose to programs that Democrats support. The Republican equivalent to this would be to propose closing more tax loopholes or proposing deeper cuts to defense, which Ryan’s budget doesn’t do. Ryan’s budget draws the line against any more revenues and also proposes more defense spending than current law allows.
Yes, sorry. That wording was unclear. Although I think your version is a little overly broad since some of his supporters are willing to make this concession. In any case Obama and some Congressional Democrats have offered to make cuts to programs they and their constituents support and there’s been some backlash, but the concept is going anywhere anyway - not as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, not as part of the deficit ceiling Grand Bargain a couple of years ago.
This is another one of those threads wherein the conservatives complain that the President hurt their feelings? Sure looks like one.
So Obama has the audacity to call someone a liar when he lies non-stop? Irony.
You cannot be serious?
First, you say you don’t like Obama calling lobbyists liars and in the very next post you say I don’t know if they did or not lie. So, your problem is that he called them harsh words and you don’t really care about the essence of it – bottom line, you just don’t like POTUS using harsh words. You don’t really care if he’s right or wrong or if, looking at the bigger picture, he has a political right to say whatever the heck he pleases to say as elected President and as someone who is pursuing political fight.
Secondly, aside from not having an opinion on the issue itself, you live in some la-la land where your perception of lobbyists – despite of myriad examples to contrary about revolving door dynamic that exists in Washington and unabashed corruption that exists – is so fantastically pure you won’t give a benefit of a doubt to someone who’s in middle of it. In effect, you put more value on lobbyists than elected officials. All of this, ironically, in the sub-forum “Elections”.
“Disagrees with me” is not the same as “liar”.
But, first: “But the members of Congress aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to listen to any lobbyist that they don’t respect” is just a whoosh, right?
The more I read this the more mind-boggling it is. The president is an elected official. He can’t stand above politics, least of all on political issues. There are situations in which the president is in effect speaking for the country, yes. A debate over legislation is not one of them.
I don’t think people in Congress would agree with this. I know Robert Byrd was supposedly once asked how many presidents he’d served under, and he said none- but he’d served with eight.
Again, that already happened. This was the compromise that followed a previous gun control bill. The Republicans maybe getting ready to offer a third version that I assume Democrats aren’t going to support- or maybe that was just a smoke screen to make it easier for Republicans on the fence to filibuster.
I’m not sure you have any idea how this works. The issue with the gun control bill is not “well, the NRA’s lobbyists obviously provided credible data on the bill.” The issue is that these Senators concluded it was in their interest politically to filibuster this bill. Remember, Congress and the President aren’t elected by the same groups of people. And Senators who felt they would lose votes or funding if they supported this bill - partly because the NRA opposed the bill and would have devoted its resources to making them pay - helped filibuster the thing to death. That’s what’s going on here, and that’s the basic deal with some of these issues in a broader way. Republicans feel it’s political suicide to compromise with Obama, partly because of their own rhetoric over the years.
Personally I hope the only language necessary after the midterms is Obama flipping Republicans the bird.
No, this is a, “Won’t somebody think of the lobbyists?” thread.
You can’t possibly be serious.
He’s the leader of a political party who is pushing for specific legislation to be passed against determined and lying opposition. Yet for some reason, he’s supposed to be Mr. Nice Guy?
If, upon hearing of the news of Thatcher’s death, he’d stood in the Rose Garden and announced “It’s about time,” I’d agree with you. In that situation, he’s speaking for the nation. As it is, he’s speaking for himself, as a leader and as a politician, and he’s right, and his comments were appropriate.
Awwww…poor widdle wiberals don’t wike it when they wose.
Never a good thing to see the erstwhile leader of the free world acting like a toddler because he didn’t get his way. Funny, yes, but still not good.
Are you being deliberately ironic?
You’re the one using baby talk to describe politics, and then calling the President a toddler. Irony.
Yes, I expect him to start a thread in ATMB shortly.
Funny, I saw strength, determination, and a “calling it like it is” honesty that I found motivating and refreshing.
The only one acting like a toddler here is you. (ETA: Oakminster, that is.)
I’m not throwing a temper tantrum. I’m celebrating the courageous senators who stood up to the gun grabbers and protected our freedom. Makes my day.
Yes, courage, like turning all your "L"s into "W"s.