99 weeks (the max) is not 2 1/2 years.

We've gone over this before, so I won't rehash it here.

Your right sorry, 2 years of unemployment I equate with welfare.

Remember the stimulus package, republicans tried to give input.

 

Obama, "I won"

 

Yes, that was very uniting.

 

The first big bill was the stimulus package. The bill as passed was over 1/3 tax cuts. The President gave the Republicans over a third of the bill and they still refused to support it. I think the Presidents biggest fault is that he is a bad negotiator. He should have traded those tax cuts for some votes. No votes, no tax cuts. What the Republicans found out with that vote was that they could profit at the ballot box by saying no to everything. If the Republicans were against any universal healthcare bill I wish they would have just said so and we could have spared ourselves a year of negotiation. The President tried hard to be a uniter. Others had a different agenda and that's okay. I think that the people of this country are pretty smart. They will figure out that when the country was in trouble one party proposed solutions and one party played for the next election. I happen to believe that with both parties participating in crafting the legislation the results would be better, but if it doesn't matter what you give them they will still vote against it, the answer is don't give them anything.

I think that Obama is a divider- he has done nothing but blame the republicans from the get go. He is a blamer- everyone but him and his adminstration are to blame. Both sides have some seriious issues but when there is no true compromise, why should anyone want to change. One of my biggest concerns is that most people today do not seem to have the respect for our country. We have become a hodge podge of mediocrity IMO I do not seem him as a man who loves America but one who is out to break America.

America is divided right now, but the fault should not be placed entirely at the feet of Obama.

 

I think our division began with the Clinton administration. From the time he entered office, Clinton was loathed by the right. But in '94 he was forced to work with them (and they with him), and the result was a booming economy. While most conservatives never embraced Clinton, they secretly enjoyed the low gas prices, increasing investments, & budget surpluses. But then came Monica Lewinski, and the division was clearly evident.

 

Then it reached what I believe was its zenith, with the Presidential election of 2000. The whole Florida situation seriously peeved half of this nation, and GWB entered office bruised and battered. Then 9/11 came and we were as strong as we've been in my lifetime (sad that an attack on our soil is what it took for that to happen). We remained that way until the invasion of Iraq, and then we became incredibly more divided when we got bogged down there, resulting in yet another very tight Presidential election in 2004. Then when Katrina happened, Bush lost all credibility with the vast majority, and even lost confidence from his own party with his erratic and excessive spending.

 

Obama's 2008 election brought hope to many people who felt like he was not your average, cookie-cutter politician. However, Obama's standing in the polls has nose-dived quicker than I (and most others) imagined. And I think that it's in America's best interest to make an attempt to force the legislative & executive branches to work together by handing the controls of Congress to the Republicans, much like we did in 1994. Whatever happens, I just hope the President can turn this ship around, because it's been rough sailing for a long, long time.

 

So I'm not sure we're as much divided as we are angry. Everyone we've put into office has failed to deliver what we've expected, so we're disillusioned, cynical, and angry--and we have every right to be.

 

Personally, I don't think Obama wakes up every morning asking himself, "How can I divide America today?" The decisions he's made up to this point, I believe, have come from sincerity & good intentions. However, I think he's very misguided and is making a bad situation worse. But I do wish the man well and sincerely hope he can help America become the nation it once was.

Edited July 23, 201016 yr by Randy Parker
can't spell

Again, Bush didn't have the numbers in the Senate to do what ever he felt like. He had to work with the Dem's in order to get anything passed. They didn't filibuster anything because they got what they wanted.

 

Good point. And don't forget that on many issues, Bush was far from conservative. I'm thinking of No Child Left Behind (terrible legislation IMO, and then made worse when he under-funded it), bank bailouts, & the auto industry bailouts. And on top of that, Bush was very popular from the time of 9/11 to the earlier stages of the Iraq invasion, so it was politically advantageous to work with him or support his legislation.

The first big bill was the stimulus package. The bill as passed was over 1/3 tax cuts. The President gave the Republicans over a third of the bill and they still refused to support it. I think the Presidents biggest fault is that he is a bad negotiator. He should have traded those tax cuts for some votes. No votes, no tax cuts. What the Republicans found out with that vote was that they could profit at the ballot box by saying no to everything. If the Republicans were against any universal healthcare bill I wish they would have just said so and we could have spared ourselves a year of negotiation. The President tried hard to be a uniter. Others had a different agenda and that's okay. I think that the people of this country are pretty smart. They will figure out that when the country was in trouble one party proposed solutions and one party played for the next election. I happen to believe that with both parties participating in crafting the legislation the results would be better, but if it doesn't matter what you give them they will still vote against it, the answer is don't give them anything.

The stimulus should have been 2/3 tax cuts minimum. It's obvious Obama's ideas haven't worked. Not sure why you didn't know Rep were against universal healthcare, I know I did. The people of this country were smart enough to know they didn't want the bill that was passed but Obama the great uniter did it anyway. I wish the left would climb down off their mountain and at least admit they are no different then the right when it comes to compromise. Obama has done nothing to bring this country together because either A) he doesn't have too, B) he doesn't know how too, or C) he doesn't care.

When your mentors are Frank Mashall Davis and Bill Ayers what would be expected?

America is divided right now, but the fault should not be placed entirely at the feet of Obama.

 

I think our division began with the Clinton administration. From the time he entered office, Clinton was loathed by the right. But in '94 he was forced to work with them (and they with him), and the result was a booming economy. While most conservatives never embraced Clinton, they secretly enjoyed the low gas prices, increasing investments, & budget surpluses. But then came Monica Lewinski, and the division was clearly evident.

 

Then it reached what I believe was its zenith, with the Presidential election of 2000. The whole Florida situation seriously peeved half of this nation, and GWB entered office bruised and battered. Then 9/11 came and we were as strong as we've been in my lifetime (sad that an attack on our soil is what it took for that to happen). We remained that way until the invasion of Iraq, and then we became incredibly more divided when we got bogged down there, resulting in yet another very tight Presidential election in 2004. Then when Katrina happened, Bush lost all credibility with the vast majority, and even lost confidence from his own party with his erratic and excessive spending.

 

Obama's 2008 election brought hope to many people who felt like he was not your average, cookie-cutter politician. However, Obama's standing in the polls has nose-dived quicker than I (and most others) imagined. And I think that it's in America's best interest to make an attempt to force the legislative & executive branches to work together by handing the controls of Congress to the Republicans, much like we did in 1994. Whatever happens, I just hope the President can turn this ship around, because it's been rough sailing for a long, long time.

 

So I'm not sure we're as much divided as we are angry. Everyone we've put into office has failed to deliver what we've expected, so we're disillusioned, cynical, and angry--and we have every right to be.

 

Personally, I don't think Obama wakes up every morning asking himself, "How can I divide America today?" The decisions he's made up to this point, I believe, have come from sincerity & good intentions. However, I think he's very misguided and is making a bad situation worse. But I do wish the man well and sincerely hope he can help America become the nation it once was.

 

I don't agree across the board but I think this is a great post.

 

What is the definition of a uniter? I'm not certain that is achievable in politics sans a common enemy. The moment of unity that springs to mind for me is Bush's performance immediately following 9/11, but that eroded into nasty division fairly quickly and that unity didn't come in the form of legislative or policy compromise but in the form of a cohesive national mood and rallying cry.

The stimulus should have been 2/3 tax cuts minimum. It's obvious Obama's ideas haven't worked. Not sure why you didn't know Rep were against universal healthcare, I know I did. The people of this country were smart enough to know they didn't want the bill that was passed but Obama the great uniter did it anyway. I wish the left would climb down off their mountain and at least admit they are no different then the right when it comes to compromise. Obama has done nothing to bring this country together because either A) he doesn't have too, B) he doesn't know how too, or C) he doesn't care.

 

See, you have illustrated my point. There was a disagreement over the best way to stimulate the economy. The side that won the election offered to go a long way toward meeting the side that lost the election. The side that lost said no. Which side was right as to the best way to stimulate the economy was and is unknowable. The winner offered a generous compromise to the loser. They rejected it as they have rejected every other attempt at compromise. I also can't let your opinion stated as fact about the Obama ideas go unchallenged. The Obama economic program staved off another great depression (opinion). It saved the American auto industry (fact). It has worked very well (opinion). There is still a long way to go, but if you rephrase Ronald Reagan's famous question from 1980, "Is the economy better off today than it was 18 months ago", I think that the very obvious answer is an emphatic yes.

When your mentors are Frank Mashall Davis and Bill Ayers what would be expected?

Red herrings ...

See, you have illustrated my point. There was a disagreement over the best way to stimulate the economy. The side that won the election offered to go a long way toward meeting the side that lost the election. The side that lost said no. Which side was right as to the best way to stimulate the economy was and is unknowable. The winner offered a generous compromise to the loser. They rejected it as they have rejected every other attempt at compromise. I also can't let your opinion stated as fact about the Obama ideas go unchallenged. The Obama economic program staved off another great depression (opinion). It saved the American auto industry (fact). It has worked very well (opinion). There is still a long way to go, but if you rephrase Ronald Reagan's famous question from 1980, "Is the economy better off today than it was 18 months ago", I think that the very obvious answer is an emphatic yes.

Are you kidding? In what way and for whom?

See, you have illustrated my point. There was a disagreement over the best way to stimulate the economy. The side that won the election offered to go a long way toward meeting the side that lost the election. The side that lost said no. Which side was right as to the best way to stimulate the economy was and is unknowable. The winner offered a generous compromise to the loser. They rejected it as they have rejected every other attempt at compromise. I also can't let your opinion stated as fact about the Obama ideas go unchallenged. The Obama economic program staved off another great depression (opinion). It saved the American auto industry (fact). It has worked very well (opinion). There is still a long way to go, but if you rephrase Ronald Reagan's famous question from 1980, "Is the economy better off today than it was 18 months ago", I think that the very obvious answer is an emphatic yes.

You say the tax cuts were in there as a compromise to the Rep but I would like to see the proof of that. What tax cuts were in it? So I ask again how did the side that won go a long way to meet in the middle? Here we are 18 months later and Unemployment is higher then it was, housing is again hitting all time lows, consumer spending is still down, and it is not a fact he save the American auto industry. Can you say with any certainty what would have happened if he allowed GM and Chrysler to fail? Nothing he has done has worked well. And I do not agree that answer is an obvious yes. You tell me what about the economy is so much better now then 18 months ago?

See, you have illustrated my point. There was a disagreement over the best way to stimulate the economy. The side that won the election offered to go a long way toward meeting the side that lost the election. The side that lost said no. Which side was right as to the best way to stimulate the economy was and is unknowable. The winner offered a generous compromise to the loser. They rejected it as they have rejected every other attempt at compromise. I also can't let your opinion stated as fact about the Obama ideas go unchallenged. The Obama economic program staved off another great depression (opinion). It saved the American auto industry (fact). It has worked very well (opinion). There is still a long way to go, but if you rephrase Ronald Reagan's famous question from 1980, "Is the economy better off today than it was 18 months ago", I think that the very obvious answer is an emphatic yes.

 

Try telling that to people just graduating college that are unable to find a job. I had no problems finding one in my field right away when I graduated roughly 18 months ago.

Try telling that to people just graduating college that are unable to find a job. I had no problems finding one in my field right away when I graduated roughly 18 months ago.

 

 

How can you have it both ways? In another thread, you said there was no reason that UE should be extended because there are jobs out there, that people are just too lazy to take them.

How can you have it both ways? In another thread, you said there was no reason that UE should be extended because there are jobs out there, that people are just too lazy to take them.

 

I vaguely remember the discussion, but did he say there was "no reason" that UEB should be extended? I don't think UKMF or any fiscally responsible person would object to extending benefits to those that are indeed unsuccessfully seeking employment if there is some way of paying for it (other than going in debt). How about recalling some of the billions of dollars in those earmarks (that were not supposed go past Obamas desk), or cutting some programs that can wait till a later date? The Obama admin constantly accuse the republicans of not wanting to extend the benefits when in fact they do, but want some way of paying for it. What's wrong with that idea?