Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/26/2011 11:34:14 PM
From: Carolyn	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

At l;east they are responsive to their constituents, unlike Democrats. Plus they would not rubberstamp an idiot president like the Democrats do now.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 5:09:40 AM
From: tonto	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Your idea in good government is confused...we want individuals in government...not a simple partyy. Your post reflects a party in Washington instead of a government of individuals...you are simply an extremist democrat.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 5:56:20 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224750

The redistributionist cannot bother to bend David Limbaugh Posted: July 25, 2011 7:37 pm Eastern © 2011 In the ongoing budget negotiations, it is becoming quite clear that President Obama, quite contrary to his posturing, is the major fly in the ointment. Even the Democratic leadership is more flexible than President Obama, putting the lie to the oft-stated speculation that Obama is a mere puppet. He is his own counsel. It was reported that on Sunday night, he unilaterally rejected a bipartisan deal presented to him by Senate and House leaders. "Sen. (Harry) Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House, and the president said no," an aide said. This is quite a different picture from what President Obama has been painting for the press. At the exact moment he said he didn't want to point fingers, he complained that he and his Democrats had been willing to compromise but that Republicans were dug into their ideological cement. He said, "And I think one of the questions that the Republican Party is going to have to ask itself is, Can they say yes to anything?" Are you kidding me? This is the guy who still hasn't presented his own plan and obstructs all others not conforming to his unreasonable demands. Though later reports indicate Reid may be caving to Obama's demands, this question remains: Why is Obama even willing to pit himself against his own party? Well, he'd have us believe that he alone is standing up for the will and interests of the American people. He must think we forgot how he crammed Obamacare down our throats. A strong majority still wants it repealed. In a recent news conference, he fraudulently claimed that 80 percent of Americans want tax increases to be included in a deal and that he would reject any deal that did not include a tax increase for the "wealthiest Americans." But Rasmussen Reports indicates that 55 percent of Americans do not want tax increases as part of the deal. A CNN poll finds that 66 percent support "cut, cap and balance," and 74 percent support a balanced budget amendment, both of which Obama steadfastly opposes. Obama's intransigence is based on his ideology and raw political calculations. Obama can't bring himself to forgo his tax hikes, even during a recession, or to embrace structural entitlement reform, because these things would offend every redistributionist molecule in his body. So while Obama says the Republicans won't bend, it is he who has not shown any willingness to move on taxes or entitlements. But those aren't the only issues on which he's set in stone. He has now become just as inflexible in resisting any short-term deal. He has said he will not sign a deal that does not raise the debt ceiling enough ($2.4 trillion) to get him past the 2012 election. Obviously, he doesn't want this nagging, inconvenient debt issue and wrangling with Congress to diminish his re- election prospects. Ever the statesman, he is placing his political fortunes above the interests of the nation. (Column continues below) In all honesty, I'm not convinced that Obama is particularly worried about the debt even today. He seems more concerned with high-speed rail, new "green" projects and other programs he and fellow statists believe are good for the people – even if they don't. During the Friday presser, he gave a shout-out to his like-minded progressives, telling them they should join him in getting the fiscal house in order because it would allow them to focus on their federal goody bag, "like infrastructure, like rebuilding our roads and our bridges (and) airports, like investing more in college education, like making sure that we're focused on the kinds of research and technology that's going to help us win the future." In Obama's world, everything centers on the government, not the private sector. It was telling that in his presser, he didn't mention private-sector unemployed, only the government workers who would lose their jobs if the debt ceiling is not increased. I was initially opposed to a short-term deal, because I thought it would be just another device to kick the can down the road and defer real spending and entitlement reform. But it is clear that given his mindset, this president cannot be entrusted with an increase in the debt ceiling that would empower him to ignore further fiscal reform until after the election. While we fret over spooking the markets each time a budget deadline approaches, a short-term deal would keep these issues on the front burner until the election, where they need to be. It would keep the ruling class on the hot seat and enforce some degree of discipline. Through his unreasonableness and dogmatism, Obama has isolated himself and is trying to bully Congress into having everything his way. He is holding the budget deal hostage to his redistributionist demands and his perceived political interests – anything but addressing the existential threat facing this nation. Pray the congressional leadership can continue to keep the heat on instead of throwing him more rope to fiscally strangle the nation. Read more: The redistributionist cannot bother to bend <A href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=326105#ixzz1THR4Rqjb" target=_blank>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=326105#ixzz1THR4Rqjb[/url]

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 7:23:29 AM
From: lorne	7 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

kenny...."Boehner has a runaway caucus. Republicans used to have party discipline - not any more."... Why should elected members always be forced to vote in line with their parties leader even when they are wrong? Thats dictatorship. All parties members should vote on bills in line with what the voters who put them in their positions want. Not with what the likes of hussein obama wants, IMO. The president of the USA should be the president of all Americans..republicans, democrats, non-party Americans..hussein obama is president of democrats and of course a soros owned president. IMO How did it come about that party members are wrong if they vote in line with their constituents or their conscientious. You follow orders well even if they are wrong...indoctrination works well on many people especially on weak minds.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 7:56:27 AM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

ken ..Hope this starts off your day in the right frame of mind. New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles July 26, 2011 Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm latimesblogs.latimes.com With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said: "I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition." This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse. But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending. Closely read the transcript of Obama's Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner's response is right here. An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter. The nation's top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph. That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side. Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority. Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans. Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy. Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets: Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor." Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009? A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February. A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%. To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy. But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise. "More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base," the Post reports. Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half. Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 8:36:39 AM
From: chartseer	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Should politicians listen to the people who elected them or to their party leaders?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108772)	7/27/2011 11:49:12 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

Boehner has a runaway caucus. Republicans used to have party discipline - not any more. -------------------- this actually is an important point. It shows how the democrats are a more monolithic group. It is also why the democrat party have been successful. If you have all the members toeing the line and not thinking and acting for themselves, you can certainly get stuff done. On the other hand, it is clear that the republicans are not quite as organized as the democrats. We have the tea-party faction, the religious right faction, the fiscally conservative but socially liberal faction. Many republicans are even pretty moderate about things like abortion and gay marriage. In other words, republicans seem to think and act more as individuals rather than letting groupthink dictate their thoughts and actions. I think that makes it harder to get things done politically, but then again, many republicans would agree that making it difficult to get things done politically is a good thing. What you pointed out, that the republican party no longer has party discipline, is probably the strongest sign that the republican party is finally getting healthy. The democrat part is definitely the party of conformity. Once young liberals realize that they support the party of conformity, the democrats are doomed.