The ‘Post of the Day’ debates Obama’s ‘divisive’ nature
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: Earlier today, I asked Another Chuck to provide 3 examples of what he considers divisive behavior by President Obama, and what Obama could do, in AC’s opinion, to be more of a “uniter.” We will take AC’s examples of divisiveness one by one, offer rebuttals, and then we’ll deal with his “uniting” suggestions.
AC’s Divisive behavior 1. Obama has targeted the rich from day one. His recent stunt of increasing taxes on the wealthy solves nothing in terms of deficit spending, in the big picture. It was a punitive and spiteful move only. As he told Joe the Plumber, “I’m all for redistributing the wealth.”
Rebuttal: The federal government needs more revenue, and it needs to cut spending. With respect to more revenue, the Republicans wanted to raise income taxes on the poor, AC. Obama wanted to allow tax cuts to expire for the rich. Between 60 and 65 percent of the nation agreed with allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on people who earned over $250k — some poll were even higher than that. Obama A) first agreed to a 2-year extension of the tax cuts, which was an olive branch to the GOP, and then, he compromised with Senate Republicans on the income level above which the tax cuts would expire (to $450k). So he compromised twice on these measures. Yet you call him divisive. What do you call the Tea Party Republicans in the, who wouldn’t even agree to atax increase on people with more than $1 million in income? You don’t call them anything. You’re saying Obama is divisive and they’re not. That’s skewed thinking.
AC’s Divisive behavior #2, Obamacare: 67% of the folks were against the substance of the bill and almost everyone was against the method of passage. This was a 100% partisan bill that received 0 votes from the other side of the asile. This bill will cost jobs,limit employee hours and add to the deficit.
Rebuttal: An overwhelming number of Americans agree that health care reform is necessary. Democrats have proposed programs such as Medicare for all and the ill-fated Clinton initiative in the early 90s, and during the Democratic primaries Obama proposed something akin to the program in Germany. What we ended up with as the ACA was something different. It was a Republican proposal first trotted out by Newt Gingrich, backed by the Heritage Foundation, and enacted in Massachusetts by a Republican governor. At its heart, it’s a conservative proposal the emphasizes individual responsibility of people to arrange for their own health care through a private insurance company. This was the LEAST DIVISIVE and MOST CONSERVATIVE model out there, one that the Heritage Foundation through a party for at hte Masschusetts bill-signing ceremony. Republicans suddenly did an about face and launched heated opposition to THEIR OWN PLAN only when it became apparent that Obama might be able to claim it as a legacy. Unfortuneatly for them, they lacked the votes to stop it because they were in the minority.
AC’s Divisive behavior 3. Recently, Obama is on a mission to legislate gun control. He doesn’t like guns and doesn’t believe that the law abiding citizen should be able to own certain types of weapons. Very devisive[sic]
Rebuttal: A majority of Americans back a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. An overwhelming majority (including more than 70 percent of NRA membrs) back universal background checks on firearms sales. These are the centerpieces of Obama’s proposals regarding gun control. Probably what will happen is the assault weapon ban will fail in the Senate. We will wind up with universal background checks and some executive orders that help to better keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, something that’s a miserable failure we’re reminded of all too frequently.
With respect to the divisiveness charge, AC, I reject that it in any way necessarily is indicative of failure for a president. A president cannot control the tactics and overheated rhetoric of his political opponents. I would remind you that Obama is no NEARLY the “most divisive” president in our nation’s history, during the time he served. Do you realize who was? It was Abraham Lincoln, and today we put him on a very short list of our greatest president’s ever. Lincoln was divisive with a capital D. So what? Are you arguing that he should have rolled over and let the slaveholders have their way? Seriously?
More from Another Chuck: I can go on and on. The Gallup poll regarding his polarization supports my feelings on Obama.
What could he do to unite? The first and most important thing he could do is come up with a legitimate budget proposal that includes massive spending cuts. The only way revenue will increase is a rapidly expanding economy and GDP. I suggest he concentrates on how to expand the economy without worrying if he pisses off he union buddies, or any other of his pet groups. Our President should work for all of us…rich, poor, black, white, etc. instead of governing from a position where he is helping or in some cases picking winners and losers.
Rebuttal: First, Obama has proposed a budget each year. Congress hasn’t bothered to enact one (and the Democrats actually share some blame for this, but it’s not becauset of Obama. He has proposed budgets.) Here, AC is arguing that to unite the country, Obama should simply accept he wishes a distinct minority of Americans, and turn his back on the majority who have twice elected him to office. It is impossible to understand how this could “unite” anybody. Going over to the other side, in essence what AC is demanding, is not at all “uniting” behavior. It would be the opposite, and it would simply provide more political ammunition for the people who hate Obama at all costs to criticize him as a turncoat. It is the silliest of all suggestions AC has made.
January 26, 2013 - 3:56 PM
The Repubs never vote for anything Obama suggests. So what? This is no debate. Call the waaaaaaambulance, your guy lost and things aren’t getting any better for you. Suck it up and run a better candidate with a platform that involves other than hating on the poor and trying to make women second class citizens. You have another chance in 4 years.
Dan, my original post quoted a new Gallup poll that found Obama to be more polarizing than GW Bush. Link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/24/Poll-Obama-as-polarizing-as-Bush/UPI-67321359054878/
You ask me to list 3 reasons why I found him to be devisive and I did. The fact that you wrote rebuttals telling me how I’m wrong and how accomondating Obama is, does not change the fact he is a very polarizing figure. Several items in your rebuttal were incorrect.
1. The GOP DID NOT want to raise taxes on the poor. They didn’t want to raise taxes on anyone. They wanted to extend all the tax cuts…and you know that! Obama drove that entire debate because he wanted a punitive tax on the wealthy which potentially solved .003% of the deficit, leaving 99.97% left to address. I wonder how many jobs that will cost the economy? It will cost some, how many is the question. That was not only a polarizing move by Obama, frankly, it was a flat out ignorant one.
2. The ACA in it’s present form is a total mess that will cost jobs, reduction in hours to hourly workers and add to the deficit. The CBO is scoring the cost at well over $1 trillion now, and I predict that number will rise along with the un and under-employment it will cause.
3. None of the gun contol measures proposed by Obama would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook. His steps assume that a mentally ill person on his way to shoot up a school is going to think, “Damn, this AR-15 I have here is illegal, I better not do this.” His proposals if enacted, will only keep certain types of weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals and will increase black markets for weapons. See the war on drugs for examples.
4. Obama’s budget proposals have been a complete joke. He has never receive a single YAY vote in the democratically controlled Senate. Not One…Zero..Nada!
Dan, you and Kristen seem to believe that Obama is this immensly popular figure to all,and that the 2012 election was a mandate from the folks. Wrong! The popular vote difference in the race can be attributed to CA alone. Yes that counts and yes, Obama ran a brilliant campaign. But the nation is bitterly divided and he fans the flames.
As you know, my 2 big issues are fiscal and personal responsibility. I am much more of a Libertarian than a Republican. The day Obama proposes and really pushes (not empty rhetoric) legislation that seriously addresses our debt and deficit spending, is the day that I will believe he has the best interest for ALL of us in mind. Otherwise, he is just another partisan hack.
hi dano,
I think your comment, “First, Obama has proposed a budget each year. Congress hasn’t bothered to enact one…” and now I paraphrase…”he was SOOOO rsponsible he proposed budgets which got, like -0- votes”. -0- votes from his most ardent supporters in the Senate…and in the House.
Please explain …just why THAT happened, eh, dano.
Apparently the word unite means something diffrent to republicans, than it does to everyone else. The word unite does NOT mean do what we (republicans) want and do nothing that we oppose. How about your republicans try doing a little uniting of their own instead of simply opposing EVERYTHING Obama proposes simply because 1) he’s black 2) he isn’t a republican 3) he kicked our ass in yet another election.
The Affordable Health Care Act was passed by Congress, the SCOTUS upheld it and the people of the United States reelected Obama. Seems to me all pertinent parties have had their say. The fact that AC and other RWers don’t agree with it matters not at this point.
Scott, fair enough. But during the entire process, Obama said the ACA was not a tax. The SCOTUS upheld the law by labeling it a tax. So, when calculating the Obama tax increases in the future, I hope you will remeber to add that to the ledger. His opposition will with the backing of SCOTUS.
The word Divisive seems to anger the social injustice crowd Another Chuck.
Another word that irritates single minded thoughts is compromise. Which you never do when you are right.
Our Presidents idea of compromise is only accomplished when getting his own way. This happened his first two years with a Democratic Congress.
Per his continued rhetoric,You can expect more division and less compromise the the next four years.
Mid-Term elections anyone?? Or is this as bad a word as divisive??
The Affordable Health Care Act was passed by Congress, the SCOTUS upheld it and the people of the United States reelected Obama. Seems to me all pertinent parties have had their say.
A. obama and his minions had to lie about the bill to get it passed.
B. They controlled the entire process when it got passed.
C. The Communist-Party-led MSM didn’t bother to dig and accurately report on the bill.
D. Most Americans hated it and still do.
E. Roberts was somehow gotten to by the liberal elitists to change his vote..
F. Dems bought enough votes and stole the rest to get obama elected despite the fact that most people think he’s doing a crappy job.
There you have it, Scott Whitaker. Nobody thinks this boondoggle is a good idea except the low-information Oprah-watchers.
federal government needs more revenue, and it needs to cut spending.
Nope. It’s only needs to cut spending.
Mike3,
Obama compromised on the “fiscal cliff,” as I’ve outlined. The Tea Party Republicans did not.
What would YOUR idea of a presidential “compromise” look like?
Total capitulation to the Tea Party no-compromisers?
That’s what I thought . . .
AC,
We are in a situation where you have “feelings” and I have facts. None of your “feelings” rebuts my facts. What’s happened is, your feelings have blinded you to the facts. You simply can’t see them.
You have my sympathies.
#3 Frank, buddy, if you can’t get it the first 27 times this BS was answered, you’re never going to get it. Quit asking.
Anyway, I thought Dan told you to quit repeating things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and…
Dan, it seems as if the really great Presidents have been able to rise above the fray and the mire. I suppose the GOP is just extra nasty this time around and it has nothing to do with Obama at all? I don’t need sympathy anymore than you do…that was unnessacary.
AC, as a Libertarian, your opposition to President Obama is understandable. I assume you railed against Mitt Romney as divisive as well. Even though he was more of a business-centric guy, he favored “big government” initiatives like … the Affordable Care Act.
Obama is divisive, but you and I will disagree about the divisions he creates. Obama offers hope for change to the poor, to our Latino population, to the middle class, to women, to African-Americans, and to our gay and lesbian citizens. He offers an opportunity for these folks to have a seat in the main dining room of policy making. In doing so, Obama has educated these peoples about the true motives of conservative tea party practitioners who want to further deepen the divide between rich and poor.
Now, make no mistake, Obama is dropping the ball in several arenas. He has not closed Guantanamo and he has not taken steps to restore the due process rights of those detained at Guantanamo. He capitulates too often to Republican obstructionism. He has not taken a strong stand against the Wall Street practices that largely caused the current economic crisis. He is far from the “idol” you make him out to be.
On a recent “Daily Show,” Jon Stewart said something to the effect that Obama’s inauguration speech dared to suggest that a government of the people, by the people and for the people could somehow…..benefit the people! Exactly. He divides by drawing a clear distinction between policies that benefit a majority of the people and policies that benefit a scant few of the people. Our last two elections are evidence of this. If conservatives and libertarians want to have an impact, then come to the bargaining table with ideas that don’t marginalize a majority of the citizens. Come to the table ready to compromise.
By the way, AC, Jon Stewart offers great insight into our dysfunction, and he does so with intelligence and humor. I highly recommend “The Daily Show.”
AnotherChuck, Obama won, your guy lost, and that’s all that matters. You seem surprised that the same failed policies that lost the election aren’t winning the day now. Why on earth would Obama pursue the policy objectives Mitt ran and lost on? Silly.
Like I said…stop whining over what you can’t control and start working on what you can. Like encouraging the GOP to stop being so batchit crazy and maybe work on getting a candidate and platform with some appeal. All this “bitterly divided” nonsense means is we have a bunch of sore losers. So what?
AC,
The article linked below indicates that the ACA is already slowing the growth of healthcare spending.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/08/440365/is-the-affordable-care-act-already-slowing-health-care-costs/?mobile=nc
Thinkprogress .org ?? Why wouldn`t they feed the lies ? Do you know their ideological thought process ? Of course they are going to say it `Saves` $$$….My God, you are one naive individual.
A `shot heard `round the world…Lexington 1775. The `authoities` came and tried to take the guns from the colonists. The rest is history to all, other than those dumbed down by the leftist government schools. `The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered down with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants`.
AC,
Was Abe Lincoln a uniter, or a divider — in your view? And was he one of our greatest presidents or not?
more from the commies
http://www.libertynews.com/2013/01/exclusive-video-the-hillary-shuffle/
Jason Perdue +1
applewood, if you believe that then why are you sitting at your desk this morning? Don’t you have some militia training to attend?
+1 applewood
Pretty sure applehead doesn’t mean HIS blood. They never do.
Or for that matter, JohnW.
Really, JohnW? A “+1″ for this pointless nattering about “blood” from someone who hasn’t left his moms basement since 11th grade? Can’t do much but laugh out loud at that.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” -Mitt Romney, in leaked comments from a fundraiser in May 2012
I’d say that’s pretty darn divisive.
18.A `shot heard `round the world…Lexington 1775. The `authoities` came and tried to take the guns from the colonists. The rest is history to all, other than those dumbed down by the leftist government schools. `The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered down with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants`.
Comment by applewood — January 27, 2013 @ 9:16 am
That being the case, why are you here fighting the battle of the keyboard?
Why don’t you gather your buddies, take your bushmasters, and hop on up to DC and the White House, and start doing a little watering. You could be a daring leader, a hero of your generation, instead of a loud mouth
no nothing spreading unadulterated tripe without one fact to back you up.
23.+1 applewood
Comment by John Wilburn — January 27, 2013 @ 9:56 am
You should pack up your arsenal and go with him. You’d make a hell of a two man army and from the quality of his posts I’m dang sure he’ll need all the help he can get. You gun conspiracy nuts are so sure the revolution is coming, why don’t you quit yakking about it and get on with it.
Applewood, I have been loathe to respond to one of your inane posts to date, but the irony of your comments at 9:11 a.m. deserves a highlight.
Remember that the ACA at which you shake your fist was dreamed up by Newt Gingrich and put into practice by Mitt Romney (with reasonable success) in Massachusetts. It is a piece of conservative legislation, yet you cry as if it were, as Leon is fond of saying, a liberal progressive conspiracy.
What is really at play here is a severe case of policy envy. President Obama realized that a healthcare plan modeled after the Gingrich/Romney idea just might pass muster with the citizenry, and he was right. Conservatives are so busy obstructing that they have no coherent plan to move forward. They had a winner right under their collective noses, but failed to realize it.
Come to think of it, I can now well understand your cryptic postings – it’s a stress reaction brought on by the re-election of a thoughtful, intelligent President.
`The tree of liberty must
, from time to time,bewatered downrefreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants`. [Thomas Jefferson to William Stevens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787]Comment by applewood — January 27, 2013 @ 9:16 am
Please stop mangling T.J. quotes, least of all one of my favorite ones. I promise to examine your opinions more thoroughly if you do. See? That’s called compromise. At least this quote can actually be attributed to him, though.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go collate ballistics tables; I’m commissioning a new rifle.
“Once in a while the bush of Liberty must be dampened with the blood of tyrants and patriots, or kids wandering through the neighborhood carrying Skittles, or first graders, or whomever else is annoying me at the moment” – the Screen Berets of Dan Casey’s Blog
Jason, I enjoyed your post and I do enjoy the daily show, although I only seem to remeber to watch it about once a week. I believe that you look at Obama’s words, actions and policies and relate to them because you embrace and share his liberal philosophy. He was the most liberal member of the Senate…when he didn’t vote present. He has continued his liberal idelology in his current office. I am for a very small, fiscally responsible central government and Obama’s big government policies are the opposite…in my opinion. As I have said many times before, I find the mainstream GOP only slightly better and most of that is due to nuance. The GOP is talking a good game right now, but when they have the opportunity to govern, they spend about as much as the Dems. So, I think the ultimate turnaround will come from a different platform than the 2 major parties.
I don’t believe either of us are “bad guys,” because we both want our country to be the best it can be. We just disagree on how we accomplish that goal. We are not alone. The country is bitterly divided along the lines we are discussing. Therefore, Obama is a very polarizing figure.
AC,
1. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan proposed a tax plan that would eliminate a lot of deductions and lower tax rates. This would have effectively increased the amount of taxes paid by the poor and middle classes but it would have benefited the wealthiest taxpayers.
2. Congress already has made some necessary changes to the ACA and they will make more. Few pieces of legislation are perfect from the get-go. This is true of states like Virginia as well. Fixes to earlier laws are made every year. You keep called ACA “government-run” healthcare. That’s total BS and you know it. Britain has government run (public) healthcare. Canada has a private healthcare system in which the government pays all the bills. Germany’s universal healthcare (which dates to the late 1800s, btw) operates on another model. The ACA is a CONSERVATIVE alternative to all of those. Kristen is exactly right about this: the GOP is playing a policy envy game. They swore, back when Clinton took a large share of the credit for welfare reform, that they would NEVER allow a Democratic president to take their ideas and put his stamp on them, JUST LIKE Obama managed to do with the ACA. That is the source of ALL of their angst about the legislation. But they’ve fooled you, and others, into believing otherwise.
3. You’re probably correct that none of the gun-control proposals now on the table would have stopped Sandy Hook. But that isn’t necessarily the yardstick by which these proposals must be judged — so stop judging them by that yardstick, please. The fact is, these proposals, had then been in effect in 2007, could have stopped Cho from legally buying his handguns. They could have stopped the Aurora killer, and the Tuscon killer. The gun control legislation now on the table DOES NOT have to solve ALL of the problem. If it solves three quarters of it, it’s still a step in the right direction.
4. Time and time again here on this blog, the RWers have cried, “Obama hasn’t proposed a budget.” That’s a lie, and I’ll give you credit for knowing that. But there’s something about the process that you seem to fail to understand: we have a three branch government. The president is not Congress’ boss. The president A) proposes a budget, and then B) Congress rewrites the thing in the way they want it, and then they send it back to the president who can either sign or veto the thing.
It’s not Obama’s fault that Congress has never sent him a passed-by-the-House-and-Senate budget. He’s sent budgets to them. Would you blame my employer if I failed to pay my electric bill? Of course not; as a big fan of “personal responsibility” you would say that bill is my problem. That’s why it is so confouding that you’re blaming Obama for Congress’ inability to pass a budget.
Comment by applewood — January 27, 2013 @ 9:16 am
“A `shot heard `round the world…Lexington 1775. The `authoities` came and tried to take the guns from the colonists.”
Wow – talk about fractured history… I just finished reading a book about the origins of the American Revolution – and nowhere, NOWHERE is there any mention of arms being taken away from the “colonists”. You might want to spend less time propagating bogus history via your keyboard, and spend more time reading American history,
The book included excerpts from the British Parliament, and all the acts they tried to impress on the colonies – the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Duties Act, the Coercive Act, the Tea Act [led to the Boston Tea Party] ,,,nothing about confiscating anyone’s firearms.
Much like the NRA, you see the “bogeyman” government as an enemy that lays in wait to snatch your guns – it is much like your take on history, and the “tree of liberty” – replete with ignorance and paranoia.
You seem to be a perfect example of the adage: Think education is expensive? Try ignorance.
Earl Langrebe was a congressman from Indiana during the 1960s and into the early 1970s. He was a staunch supporter of Richard Nixon. During a press conference he was holding back in Indiana shortly after it had been determined that had lied about his involvement in Watergate and its coverup Cong. Langrebe was asked if he had changed his mind about Nixon in light of the new information. His answer went like this, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up on that matter.”
I am left wondering if applewood, Another Chuck and others on this blog are not relatives of Cong. Langrebe given their comments on this blog.
You know who was a great “unificator”? Hitler was. Mao was.
The RW spends half its time mewling how Obama is using Alinskian Mind Control techniques to put us all under a group-think spell, and the other half railing at how he’s “dividing” the country and turning us against eachother. Which is it, folks?
A huge portion of the country absolutely detested Bush and by the time he left the only “unifying” factor of his administration was the way he and his ghoulish VP were universally loathed. Does that make Bush a great unificator? Hardly.
Sometimes, RWers, you’re going to lose. That doesn’t mean anything in the universe is irretrievably broken. It means your side lost, nothing more.
Ron, the fact that you can find an article that supports your point-of view on the internet does not make it fact! I bet you can find 20. However, I can find 20 fact based articles from reputable sources to completely blow your facts out of the water, in most cases. The sources of most of your links are from left-wing propoganda arm of the media, which supports your philosophies. I continue to remain unimpressed by your self-proclaimed ownership of the facts. You should consider getting out of the leftist teacher lounges more, and investigate what it takes to own a small business, which produces jobs and creates tax dollars. What you will quickly find is, a small business owner has an equal partner. That equal partner has no risk, makes no investment and takes half of the proceeds. The partner is government and it is unfair and wrong.
“+1 applewood”
Wow, John W, you’ve been REALLY weird since your little trip to Richmond. Now you’re praising applewood. Pitiful.
“Ron, the fact that you can find an article that supports your point-of view on the internet does not make it fact! I bet you can find 20. However, I can find 20 fact based articles from reputable sources to completely blow your facts out of the water. . .”
–Comment by Another Chuck
Great! We’re waiting.
“Why wouldn`t they feed the lies ?”
Why is there an echo in the blog every time apple posts?
“37.Ron, the fact that you can find an article that supports your point-of view on the internet does not make it fact! ”
Don’t tell Leon.
Dan, I’m still trying to figure out how you are giving Obama a pass on the budget process. A feasible budget proposal starts with the President,then it is sent to the Senate. Again, not one of his budgets have received a SINGLE YAY VOTE in the Democratically controlled Senate. I’m sure you and Mr. May have come to the conclusion that this is the fault of the GOP controlled House, or, perhaps it might even be GW Bush’s fault. It’s going to take me a while to work through you guy’s intellecual/journalistic mind-set to understand this reasoning. Right now I’m still stuck thinking that Obama is submitting a budger so far-fetched because he doesn’t want one. This might take me a while…but, I’m trying.
I’m getting more whining from the antis for a little +1 than applewood got for posting it in the first place. LOL.
Being too scared to post under one’s own name is pitiful, jihad, I mean gdad.
“Dan, I’m still trying to figure out how you are giving Obama a pass on the budget process. A feasible budget proposal starts with the President,then it is sent to the Senate. Again, not one of his budgets have received a SINGLE YAY VOTE in the Democratically controlled Senate. I’m sure you and Mr. May have come to the conclusion that this is the fault of the GOP controlled House, or, perhaps it might even be GW Bush’s fault. It’s going to take me a while to work through you guy’s intellecual/journalistic mind-set to understand this reasoning. Right now I’m still stuck thinking that Obama is submitting a budger so far-fetched because he doesn’t want one. This might take me a while…but, I’m trying.”
–Comment by Another Chuck
AC, perhaps the disconnect here is due to the fact that, in covering the legislative process, I’ve had an up-close seat to how the process works — and you have not. This is how it works: CONGRESS, not the president, appropriates and spends money. The president makes a proposal, but it’s not a take-it-or-leave-it thing. Rather, it’s merely the beginning of a process, which can be long and drawn out, during which the proposal is subject to all kinds of change.
1. Some of the changes are made by the budget-writing committees in the House, others are made by the budget writing committees in the Senate. Others may be made on the House and Senate floor.
2. When and if House and Senate pass versions of a budget, if those versions differ in any way, then the leaders of each appoint a conference committee to work out the differences between the bills.
3. After the conference committee works out the differences, then each chamber amends its bill to conform to the changes. The Senate passes the changed Senate version and sends it to the House. The House passes the identically changed House version and sends it to the Senate. They they pass the other chamber’s bills.
4. And then both identical bills go to the President, who signs them or vetoes them (they may work off one bill, too, in which case there is only one for the president to sign or veto.
If Congress wants to pass the budget, then they should take his proposal, rewrite it in a way that they can support, and then pass the rewritten version. This is how it’s done. The fact that they haven’t done that is on them, not on the president.
“I’m getting more whining from the antis for a little +1 than applewood got for posting it in the first place. LOL.”
–Comment by John Wilburn
JW, that’s because applewood has made himself into an anonymous caricature of a RWer know-nothing, what with throwing around made-up quotes by Thomas Jefferson, among other things. Nobody here takes applewod seriously.
You, on the other hand, are not anonymous, and you are taken much more seriously than applewood is partly because of that and partly for other reasons. What you heard was cries of dismay from others that you seemed to be taking applewood seriously. That’s all.
We expect idiocy from applehead, John W. we hope for better from you.
If Congress wants to pass the budget, then they should take his proposal, rewrite it in a way that they can support, and then pass the rewritten version. This is how it’s done. The fact that they haven’t done that is on them, not on the president.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 27, 2013 @ 2:19 pm
Excellent description of the budget process, Dan. I blame the bozos in the Senate and House, too. But, a worthy leader would drive this process instead of allowing our dysfunctional legislative side of the government not to do their LEGAL duty. And that leadership would start with a reasonable budget proposal. So Obama shoulders at least some of the blame here. The reality is, he won’t drive the budget process because he is unwilling to address spending cuts. This is consistent theme with Obama, beginning with the complete dismissal of the Simpson-Bowels recommendations. Not a single one of them (legislative or executive) should have received a dime in the last 3 years.
Dan, if it makes you feel any better, I don’t take applewood or gdad seriously. I did like applewood’s post, though.
Kristen, what do you expect that is better from me?
Has anyone noticed how chaotic the World is right now?…not really blaming BO here. Something’s up that I don’t think will end well.
Another Chuck – I agree there are parts of the world spiraling into chaos. Much upheaval in any one part – Libya – will lead to unrest in neighboring countries – Algeria, Egypt etc. whether it is called an “Arab Spring” or a power grab, the disruption seems to be contagious and a little unsettling.
Not sure which is worse, “religious wars” or wars based on their perverted idea of “freedom”.
“Has anyone noticed how chaotic the World is right now?”
The World has always been chaotic, AC. No one here gets out alive.
AC @47 – “This is consistent theme with Obama, beginning with the complete dismissal of the Simpson-Bowels recommendations.”
You do a lot of blaming of President Obama – he can no more force the legislators to vote on any bill, let alone force them to pass any reforms to the budget. He could and did establish a commission to make some budgetary recommendations.
“The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, aka Simpson-Bowls, was established by presidential order in February 2010, included 18 members, split between Democratic and Republican appointees. To have the proposal sent to Congress for a vote, 14 out of 18 members had to vote yes.” http://tinyurl.com/8b52ou9
That didn’t happen. Both Democrats and Republicans voted against the Simpson-Bowls – only eleven members voted in favor of the measure, again a mixture of both Democratic and Republican support.
Had the president unilaterally decided to pass the measures, by a signing statement or other means, many would have howled that he was acting like a “dictator”. Instead, he “let the chips fall where they may”, and followed the democratic process – and still you blame the president. Why?
The past decade has seen fewer war deaths than and decade in the last 100 years.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war
JohnW, I wouldn’t expect you to chime in on the idiocy that is applewood, especially with his daily “Let’s Butcher A Quote” routine.
AnotherChuck, we had 2 world wars in the last century. We also dropped an atomic weapon. We aren’t in a world war right now, and I’m not saying it has anything to do with Obama…..
The world is always chaotic. Read up.
…than “any” decade…
Sorry
I se,e John W, so I guess you’re saying that fellow gun fondler, Jack, is scared and pitiful? Right? Of course you are.
What’s REALLY pitiful is being so scared every minute of the day that you have to carry an arsenal everywhere you go. And sometimes won’t even go where you can’t carry it. Sad.
Hi folks,
I think it’s a great idea for obama to direct the U.S. government to sell 24 F-16′s, 156 F-16 enginies, 4 batteries of Harpoon missiles, and 450 Hell-fire missles….to Muslim-Brotherhood controlled Egypt.
Anybody with me on that?
Hi John Wilburn,
I think applewood is spot on with many of his posts.
In my opinion, that’s why the libs have to ridicule him.
He’s like the Matador waving the red flag…and they’re the enraged bull.
gdad:
“I se,e John W, so I guess you’re saying that fellow gun fondler, Jack, is scared and pitiful? Right? Of course you are.”
Jack goes by the name Jack, has posted his picture here, and been to both gonzo gatherings. Where’s your picture?
53.The past decade has seen fewer war deaths than and decade in the last 100 years. (Comment by scott whitaker)
True, and not only that, but the changing nature of bilateral warfare has meant a rapid decline in the number of POW’s, as large infantry ground force actions become much rarer. It may be that POW’s have become only a feature of asymetric war, i.e. hostages in terrorist actions, rather than traditional POW’s. This was a largely unrecognized difference in U.S. reactions to the Bush/Cheney wars (even Desert Storm had some POW’s who bore some strategic importance). I don’t think it has been recognized enough what this has meant for the domestic politics of war in the U.S. Not having a draft has mattered too, but at least that factor gets some recognition.
The same changing nature of combat is also a factor in women being able to be allowed direct combat duty, as the president has just done. Heck, sex advice expert Dr. Ruth Westheimer was a sniper in the Israeli army, and wounded by a bomb fragment!
gdad,
You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. I went to Virginia Tech for a sporting event today and left my gun at home in Roanoke without thinking a thing of it.
Had the president unilaterally decided to pass the measures, by a signing statement or other means, many would have howled that he was acting like a “dictator”. Instead, he “let the chips fall where they may”, and followed the democratic process – and still you blame the president. Why?
Comment by Hillary — January 27, 2013 @ 3:35 pm
Hillary, Obama could have cherry picked the best ideas and run with them if he wanted to. See how he is taking off with gun legislation? He’s taking it to the people. There is just no indication that cutting spending is important to Obama. Please stop the excuses.
AC – I don’t consider my post “excusing” the President. Even when President Obama “takes it to the people” he cannot past the legislation. Congress is responsible for any debt we incur as a nation…the all important purse strings reside in Congress’ hands – not the President’s.
Spending is what Congress does – not the President.
The republicans’ idea of balancing the budget is cut safety nets for those in need, break the Social Security pledge made years ago – it is never the “pork” [the Alaskan bridge to nowhere comes to mind], defense or the myriad of subsidies to farmers, oil companies, and other special interests represented by lobbyist walking the halls.
I’ll make a deal with you, if you can stop the unfair criticism of this President, I’ll not feel it necessary to justify his actions to you. How’s that for compromise?
I’m sorry, John W, I don’t currently see and haven’t seen Jack’s pic. Glad to hear he’s going by his real first name (btw, I was not aware of that), but there are many, many “Jacks” out there, so that’s hardly posting completely in the open. I could post under my first name but that would hardly tell you who I am because it’s even more common than Jack and almost as common as John. OTOH, my last name is so unusual in the U.S. that anybody could immediately find me. J.M. White assures us that in real life pissed-off people don’t actually bother you, but that was not my experience when I was a reporter.
I haven’t been to the two Gonzo gatherings because I was out of town and then sick, but I hope to attend in the future. And I’ve revealed enough details over the years that several people have figured out my real identity, in addition to a number of people who already knew who I am. Unlike the truly anonymous on here.
No, John W, you won’t badger or insult me into posting under my name or putting up my picture. I know that galls you for some reason, but there it is.
Jack, glad to hear you traveled without your gun and thought nothing of it. Given a number of your past statements about gun free zones etc., I’m somewhat surprised. Obviously my post about those who are afraid to go anywhere without a weapon doesn’t apply to you.
gdad:
“No, John W, you won’t badger or insult me into posting under my name or putting up my picture. I know that galls you for some reason, but there it is.”
I positively don’t care about you posting a picture or real name, but insist you can’t have the same credibilty as someone who does.
gdad:
“I haven’t been to the two Gonzo gatherings because I was out of town and then sick, but I hope to attend in the future.”
Actually, you were bowling.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/11/the-sunday-meetup-on-the-monday-open-thread/#comment-234477
Bowling for Columbine, John.
This post is made under my real name, same as Jack:
gdad, by now you know that John Wilburn gives his own choices absolute righteousness, and declares any he disagrees with to be unsafe.
He also thinks that without full names, it might be a web bot posting, thus lacking credibility.
Maybe John’s had lots of experience with web bots.
Liberty!!!
gdad,
My picture is linked to in the second comment on this thread. It’s a terrible picture of me, I think.
There may be another around here somewhere, too, but I’m not sure.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/07/they-were-packing-pistols-at-the-vcdl-picnic-in-green-hill-park/
Jack, glad to hear you traveled without your gun and thought nothing of it. Given a number of your past statements about gun free zones etc., I’m somewhat surprised. Obviously my post about those who are afraid to go anywhere without a weapon doesn’t apply to you.
Comment by gdad — January 27, 2013 @ 10:36 pm
I can’t stand the idea of the so-called “gun-free zones.” They are much like the TSA, they are there to make naive people feel safer. Much of the time they serve that particular purpose quite nicely. Please don’t confuse that with *actually making* people safer.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t abide by them when I am required to by law. Two years ago, I would have carried to that sporting event at Virginia Tech. It wasn’t against the law. They do, however, have a regulation now which has the force of law and I am willing to abide by it if I feel the need to go inside one of the buildings covered by the regulation.
Just like with the “gun free zones,” though, I will do what I can to have the law changed. Until then, though, I will abide by it if I must go to that place.
Many times, I will choose to take my business elsewhere if it is a posted private property and that option is available to me and I can acquire what I want somewhere else at a reasonable price.
In this case, it was something that I really wanted to attend and see, and there wasn’t an alternative so I made the choice to leave my gun at home. I could carried it and left it in the car, in fact, I almost did, but in the end opted not to carry it with me at all.
Ahh, John found the other picture… I knew it was here somewhere:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/11/the-sunday-meetup-on-the-monday-open-thread/
Oops, posted on the wrong thread. Anyway, my mistake, John W. I didn’t look up the reason and had forgotten that was the time our bowling time got moved because my partner didn’t show up for our morning time. Didn’t know you were keeping such close tabs on me. Point being, I did intend to come, but wasn’t able to for reasons beyond my control.
“I positively don’t care about you posting a picture or real name, but insist you can’t have the same credibilty as someone who does.”
“Insist” away, John. And while I do remember the photo with Jack at the gathering, and, yes, he uses his real first name, I still haven’t the slightest idea who Jack actually is or where to find him (not that I want to, Jack, unless we meet at a Gonzo gathering). Same with Steve C and Miriam, both of whom are in the photo. So the reality is that they are all still semi-anonymous. As am I.