See, it's already starting:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
Printable View
See, it's already starting:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
Voters get what they vote for. (And not voting is the same as voting for the winner, so thank you Mykil.)
Republican Chuck Hagel at least regrets his support for giving Bush a blank check in 2002. Clinton does not even do that, and her family's attempt to force her into his administration foreshadows what kind of a team player she will be.
Obama is not Bush, so I do have a reasonable amount of hope for the future. His website does have a place for input, and maybe it gets read. Let him know the status quo is unacceptable. I am just glad I live in a one-sided state and had the luxury of voting for a third party.
~ Neshamah
It was the same for me. Amazing how many people aren't at all happy, unless their particular sliver of the electorate gets into power, at the cost of everyone else. One would think that, after the debacle of the last eight years, they'd get a clue. Just because all people won't join consensus, doesn't make it any less valuable a goal.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:
About Nader: I know that he has popularity on this forum far FAR beyond almost anywhere else. I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another. He's well-intentioned I'm sure. Unfortunate that in recent history his biggest contribution was a negative effect on election outcome. I was relieved to see that in this presidential election almost everyone except a minute percentage ignored him, along with his conservative counterpart, Barr. I think that by now almost all people realize that a good gadfly would probably make a horrendously ineffective president.
>>Clinton does not even do that, and her family's attempt to force her into his administration foreshadows what kind of a team player she will be.
Hi--
What's your source for the information that she's being forced by family into the Cabinet? I haven't read anything to that effect.
Cheers--
Conrad
I am a bit dismayed by the persistent demand for instant gratification which seems to permeate young minds today. Likewise their unimaginable call for formenting blazing revolutions in order to bring about change.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Tars:
Time can be an excellent teacher, and it's a pity the lessons that come with age and experience aren't transferable to young people.
Lest anyone think age and experience lays claim to all knowledge, or is in any way the last word..let it be made clear ...I'm very aware how of far behind this new generation I am, at least where it comes to education, technical advances, communications skills etc.
I do have the advantage of a knowing that the wheels of change do grind slowly, and what they produce is rarely enough to satisfy most my desires.
Still, I am willing to temper my responses in accordance with the understanding that a move forward is better than sliding back into the abyss.
Likewise, I have a better understanding of what blazing revolutions canlook like.
It's one thing to shoot 'em up on video game where it's all clean and tidy.
It's quite another to stand over an 'enemy's' body smelling blood, shit, and whatever meal he has but partly digested.
It's a god awful thing to look into dying eyes, seeing (for the very first time) he is just another human being ...one who happens not to look like me ... one who not doubt also bought into the 'fight for God and Country' ploy.
Damn me if my heart doesn't still stir when certain marching tunes are played.
Damn me again for having ever believed in fighting for God, Country, and Freedom was ever an honorable course of action.
Young males have been biting on that kind of rotten bait for as far as as recorded history goes, and then a hell of a lot more.
And damn me again because there is nothing I can do to change their minds.
Russ
Conrad,
I'm sorry, I wasn't writing very carefully. No one is forcing Clinton to do anything. Rather, Hillary and Bill Clinton are trying to force Obama to pick her as Secretary of State by making it appear that to do otherwise would be a very public snub. I cannot think of any other reason the Clintons so quickly made it public that she was under consideration. If selected, they will continue to do what they can to manipulate him. If he can stand his ground this time, I am fairly optimistic about the next four years. If he caves this early, well, he's still someone other than Bush, so I won't lose all hope.
~ Neshamah
Let's just call him "Bushama", or do ya'all you like "OClinton" better?
Change: Yes, he changes what he says every other day.
Hope: I sure hope you don't really believe him.
Let's see, in just the last 18 days:
No tax decreases for the poor and middle class.
No tax break rollbacks for the rich.
His "new politics" are Clinton's ex's.
We won't be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future.
18 days and he has already broken his 4 biggest promises, how much longer are you fools going to believe the liar?
"I will only use public funding", "I do not support offshore drilling", "I would never disown Jeremiah Wright" etc, etc.
I guess if somebody tells you what you really want to hear, then you really believe him even when confronted with the opposing truth, but this kind of self delusion has never had any appeal to me.
I'll bet people are sporting "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers before he gets inaugurated...
Concern-troll much?
First of all, tax cuts for the bottom 95% are still planned.
Secondly, while there is discussion of waiting to overturn the Bush tax cuts for the rich, this is actually recommended even by some very progressive economists right now, because the economy is in free-fall. The cuts will expire in 2010 and there is NO discussion out of the Obama shop of extending them.
Third, where do you propose he find experienced and knowledgeable people who can fill appointment seats if you propose he must avoid all of those who had roles in the Clinton administration? You think he should bring back 80-year-olds who served in the Carter administration? Or do you think he should do as Bush did, and fill the seats with ideological hacks and incompetent cronies?
Fourth, Obama never promised to take public financing--he promised to "enter a discussion" with McCain to reach an agreement on it. But more importantly, his campaign was consistent with the SPIRIT of public financing, which is to take politics out of the hands of the wealthy and level the playing field for ordinary people. With 3.1 million donors at an average of $86 each, Obama ran the most grassroots-fueled campaign in living memory, and probably in the entire planet's history.
Fifth, I don't know where you got the nonsense about Iraq, but the 16-month timetable is still the Obama plan...more than that, the SOF agreement the Iraqi government is insisting on only goes a few months after that, so the troops ARE coming out.
Sixth, he DIDN'T "disown" Jeremiah Wright. AFTER Obama's race speech, Wright went aggressively public with even more inflammatory statements, and Obama--rightfully--said he'd had enough. He first defended him, then placed his statements in the context of the complexities of race in our society, and only after all that, when Wright basically forced it on him, did he give up on him. That's not Obama's fault.
Seventh, Obama never had a hard-and-fast position against offshore oil drilling. He voted against it--pretty much a party-line vote--but his primary point on it has been that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that remains his position. He's looking at appointing Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior, who would be the greatest environmentalist at that position in history, more so even than Bruce Babbitt.
Eighth and finally, have you noticed he's not President yet?
Maybe before hitting that righteous-indignation pipe one more time, you could wait until the Obama administration has been in charge for awhile, and find out what happens. Oh, and follow the news, that would be good, too.
Mark
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by toddwquigley:
You know, this is the version of what's going on that's being peddled by conservative media voices--mostly, in my opinion, because they have wishful thinking that they can provoke a civil war in the Democratic Party. But I see no evidence for it. If Barack Obama didn't want HRC as Secretary of State, she wouldn't be asked. There is zero evidence that the man can be pushed to do things he doesn't want to do.
To me, it makes sense, from both a policy and a political standpoint. On policy, the Clintons are well-respected internationally. And the policy will be SET by Obama, not the Secretary of State. Rather than being outside and able to criticize, she will have to stand up for his policy.
Politically, it works great for Obama. If she were in the Senate, she could undermine his foreign policy and horn in on health care reform, which she desperately wants to get credit for.
From her standpoint, it makes sense because she wants to be more than just a junior Senator, and she is a long, long way from having the seniority to really be important in the Senate. She's unwilling to wait that long.
But by taking State, she's stuck until 2016. There's no way she can challenge Obama from inside his Cabinet--agreeing to serve is an endorsement of his policies and an acknowledgment of his fitness to lead. So for Obama, it's checkmate: he gets her expertise, her intelligence and her standing, and completely defangs her ability to challenge him in 2012.
It's brilliant.
Make no mistake. This guy is not just an inspiring speech maker. He is a very, very smart political strategist. Giving State to Hillary is a way for him to keep her exactly where he wants her and sharply curtail her ability to do him any harm. It helps her to get out of her Senate backwater, but gives her almost no freedom of movement until he's in his second term.
Mark
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:
Concern-troll much?
First of all, tax cuts for the bottom 95% are still planned.
Yeah, when??? He said they would be a first priority. I plan to fly through the air like Superman, and even though I have put it aside, I still plan to do it. You will get your tax breaks right after I flay across the Pacific in a reda and ble suit.
Check with the people of Illinois: He promised them tax breaks 10 years ago to get elected, and they got tax raises instead.
Secondly, while there is discussion of waiting to overturn the Bush tax cuts for the rich, this is actually recommended even by some very progressive economists right now, because the economy is in free-fall. The cuts will expire in 2010 and there is NO discussion out of the Obama shop of extending them.
Again, he said he woul overturn the tax breaks before they ran out, and yet again somebody made him change his mind.
Third, where do you propose he find experienced and knowledgeable people who can fill appointment seats if you propose he must avoid all of those who had roles in the Clinton administration? You think he should bring back 80-year-olds who served in the Carter administration? Or do you think he should do as Bush did, and fill the seats with ideological hacks and incompetent cronies?
He said there he would not fill his cabinet with Washington insiders, he has. I really don't care where he finds new blood as long as he does, but he won't, because his handlers will not let him.
Fourth, Obama never promised to take public financing--he promised to "enter a discussion" with McCain to reach an agreement on it. But more importantly, his campaign was consistent with the SPIRIT of public financing, which is to take politics out of the hands of the wealthy and level the playing field for ordinary people. With 3.1 million donors at an average of $86 each, Obama ran the most grassroots-fueled campaign in living memory, and probably in the entire planet's history.
Wrong, he flat out promised to take public financing, what channel were you watching. Nice spin, using the word spirit, do you work for Axelrod? Obama took ridiculous amounts of corporate money, try Exxon for example, over $300,000...
Fifth, I don't know where you got the nonsense about Iraq, but the 16-month timetable is still the Obama plan...more than that, the SOF agreement the Iraqi government is insisting on only goes a few months after that, so the troops ARE coming out.
Guess you missed the news the other day, the 16 month timetable is no longer the plan, the new plan is to TRY and remove some troops, with no timeline or deadline guaranteed for withdrawl. Guess what, Obama doesn't really have any say about that anyway, the people who control him do. Do you really think he makes up his own mind? LOL!!!
Sixth, he DIDN'T "disown" Jeremiah Wright. AFTER Obama's race speech, Wright went aggressively public with even more inflammatory statements, and Obama--rightfully--said he'd had enough. He first defended him, then placed his statements in the context of the complexities of race in our society, and only after all that, when Wright basically forced it on him, did he give up on him. That's not Obama's fault.
Wrong yet again, he said that he would never disown J W and Trinity after JW's "God Damn America" speech came out, that lasted 3 weeks before he cut all ties. Stop making excuses for him, he did what he did.
Seventh, Obama never had a hard-and-fast position against offshore oil drilling. He voted against it--pretty much a party-line vote--but his primary point on it has been that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that remains his position. He's looking at appointing Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior, who would be the greatest environmentalist at that position in history, more so even than Bruce Babbitt.
Oh come on, he flip-flopped back and forth on this so many times in a 2 week period that it was ridiculous, personally I lost track, is for or against now?
Eighth and finally, have you noticed he's not President yet?Yes, that's my point exactly, 20 days later, and he has already backtracked virtually everything he said and promised. No surprise to me, I looked at his history, and his history is to tell the people whatever they want to hear, and then do whatever his handlers tell him to do, which is usually 180 degrees from what he promised.
Maybe before hitting that righteous-indignation pipe one more time, you could wait until the Obama administration has been in charge for awhile, and find out what happens. Oh, and follow the news, that would be good, too.
Why wait, I saw enough 18 months ago, he's the biggest liar I've ever seen, he makes Bush and Cheney look like angels.
I follow the news, and with brand Obama, it changes constantly, because what he says and then does never matches up. I also look at the old news, the news everybody else seems to forget after a few days. Try getting your information from different sources, instead of just listening to the news that you want to hear. The media has tried their best to cover for him, but they just can't keep up with him. Too much of the truth is still out there, and they can't change it all.
Orwell was right: "War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength". Go read 1984 and Animal Farm again, we are living them right now. Obama is a puppet for the same people that controlled Bush, there is no difference except in your mind, which is exactly what they want.
Todd, what part of the words "plan" and "President-ELECT" don't you understand?
There's a lot that's just factually wrong in your reply here. Obama never said that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and implementing the middle class tax cut was "the first priority". Never said it. It's been a centerpiece of the plan. Plans are all that can exist until someone takes office, at which point there are proposals before Congress.
Obama also never said he "wouldn't fill his Cabinet with Washington insiders". Never said any such thing. He said he would bring change, and you have zero evidence that he won't. Nor will you, until he is actually in office. Perhaps you don't understand what the President does, because Bush has been a hand-puppet for his handlers for 8 years.
This guy is going to make the policy, and his appointees are going to implement it. That's how it's supposed to work, and you have no evidence that it won't.
I could go on, but there's little point. Every point you make here is a twisted version of the truth, but not the truth itself. It is the height of idiocy to accuse someone of failing to meet their campaign promises when they haven't even taken office yet. You're just looking for a reason to be outraged.
"Biggest liar I've ever seen"?
Yeah. Right.
SM
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by toddwquigley:
For a very good analysis of the phenomenon characterized by this entire thread, check out:
https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2.../57/613/665524
And here, an excellent analysis of how progressive his agenda is and why people should stop worrying:
https://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008...e-between.html
BTW, check out Obama's comments in today's press conference. He makes it clear: he's the decider, and he's going to drive the change. He's surrounding himself with smart and competent people to do that. They're not in charge--he is.
Mark,
He's certainly the smartest President-elect so far in my lifetime. I won't lose any more hope if he appoints Clinton.
The problems created by Bush's careless expansion of government cannot just be spent away through bailouts and loans to failing companies. I do not expect any magic solutions in the next two or even four years. I do hope he follows through on his promises of greater government transparency, and addresses Guantanamo sooner rather than later.
As someone whose diverse views average out to centrist, I like some of his picks and statements that many progressives do not. He is making a sincere effort to listen to and govern all of us, rather than just his supporters on November 4. That's a welcome change.
~ Neshamah
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark: