A Times article " Where Obama went wrong "

[deziloooooo]

One of the better pieces I have read regarding the POTUS, a warning, a long one, are you up to that I wonder, but where the author feels Obama screwed up, and it isn't so much the policies enacted or not enacted, just the explanation of that leaves all Americans confused and angry.

Both the supporters of the man who are left wondering where do we go from here and how did we really get here, why isn't anyone really explaining it beyond the partisan yadda yadda and those who were against the man before he took office, and have a propensity for the partisan ydda ydda but who, IMHO, also quietly , are very worried, realize their ,ydda is not helping matters any and also want to know how we got here, who is to blame , they too need a explanation of..

Possible this article might answer some of that for both parties.
---------------------------------
www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
---------------------------------
[Click on link to read the article]
---------------------------------

Opinion
What Happened to Obama?By DREW WESTEN
Published: August 6, 2011

Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.”
=================

"IT was a blustery day in Washington on Jan. 20, 2009, as it often seems to be on the day of a presidential inauguration. As I stood with my 8-year-old daughter, watching the president deliver his inaugural address, I had a feeling of unease.

It wasn’t just that the man who could be so eloquent had seemingly chosen not to be on this auspicious occasion, although that turned out to be a troubling harbinger of things to come. It was that there was a story the American people were waiting to hear — and needed to hear — but he didn’t tell it.

And in the ensuing months he continued not to tell it, no matter how outrageous the slings and arrows his opponents threw at him. "

[Deleted]

You might want to post the whole article - the NY Times is limiting how many articles you can view in a month for free.

[cme1201]

Aug 9, 2011 10:19:07 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

You might want to post the whole article - the NY Times is limiting how many articles you can view in a month for free.

Sorry, we are trying to not post entire articles, keeps everything nice and tidy.

[cme1201]

Actually an interesting article, if you can get past his personal Republicans/Tea Party hatred rants, he does a nice job of showing how Obama just may be in over his head and that because of the gravity of the situation he can't lead because he may be frozen, fearful to take a lead as every time he does it seems to explode in his face.

1. Reverend Wright.
2. Beer Summit.
3. Internal strife in Iran (no movement in support of either the people or the government)
4. Libya, (first to say we need to help those who want democracy) yet he was unwilling to say this against a country that now has the ability to work towards nuclear weapons.
5. The list goes on and on.

Obama reminds me of a serious Monday Morning Quarterback, he knows all the right things, if only the team would listen, what he doesn't understand (or can't grasp) his team should be listening and actually helping him with his goals, yet when you spend every dime of personal capital to move one piece of legislation through in your first year you don't have the ability to coerce people to help you.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 9, 2011 10:23:29 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Aug 9, 2011 10:19:07 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

You might want to post the whole article - the NY Times is limiting how many articles you can view in a month for free.

Sorry, we are trying to not post entire articles, keeps everything nice and tidy.

I understand CME and thus the way I post, plus this is a long one.

I know the Times policy but when I clicked on it the whole thing came up so thought it was ok here, are you getting a disclaimer when you click on the link? I am getting still the whole article.

[Deleted]

A Times article " Where Obama went wrong

The Times just doesn't put out a big enough newspaper with enough pages to cover "Where Obama went wrong". I'm wondering if they will do a continuing article that covers 10 or 12 different daily papers?

[deziloooooo]

Aug 9, 2011 10:41:55 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Actually an interesting article, if you can get past his personal Republicans/Tea Party hatred rants, he does a nice job of showing how Obama just may be in over his head and that because of the gravity of the situation he can't lead because he may be frozen, fearful to take a lead as every time he does it seems to explode in his face.

1. Reverend Wright.
2. Beer Summit.
3. Internal strife in Iran (no movement in support of either the people or the government)
4. Libya, (first to say we need to help those who want democracy) yet he was unwilling to say this against a country that now has the ability to work toward nuclear weapons.
5. The list goes on and on.

Obama reminds me of a serious Monday Morning Quarterback, he knows all the right things, if only the team would listen, what he doesn't understand (or can't grasp) his team should be listening and actually helping him with his goals, yet when you spend every dime of personal capital to move one piece of legislation through in your first year you don't have the ability to coerce people to help you.

CME I am trying to get past the Obama this and that, and yes the author feels many of the problems come from the right , but also is faulting the POTUS because of his not wanting to take the chance of telling it how he feels, his communication to the public basically sucks, whether one buys it is not the point.

He and all of them are in to many cases trying to appeal to everyone and you just can't , and one either believes he inherited a hell of a mess or not any more of a mess then normally given to new POTUS when they come into office.

I wonder if he should have stayed away from the medical , not saying it wasn't important to address , but spend all his time on jobs, economy but then again why should one just stay with one topic, one probklem.

I don't have a answer for that, but the author is unhappy with his lack of tough explanation to the American public whether they want to hear it or not.

As far as appealing for a middle ground with the opposition, IMHO, that part was shown from the get go and to try and be the nice guy, that was a mistake. I also understand the other side, they see it differently, with control of both houses and the Administration he and his party did not reach out as they didn;t need it. We can battle over that if we want or just say possible we are both right in a way, a bit of both there.

There must be a lot of riches involved when a party's takes office, to see how important it is by parties , over the well being of the country , that really worries me, p me off, and if so, I hate being played as a fool don't you too feel that way?

The payoffs must be hugh and as these parties do all they can to try to be the next in power, they all, both, must be laughing their butts off at the naivety of the general public, thinking that they , the parties , are fighting for control because of the common good when in reality it's for personal benefits and it is so great , they are not going to let us, the public, in on how lucrative it is.

If they lose the current battle , they just regroup and go on again, knowing in time they too will win, and then their time to eat at the public trough, and the country, we the public...let us eat cake possible, if we can get the cake. ;D

[cme1201]

CME I am trying to get past the Obama this and that

I bring no Obama this or that.

What I read from the article, particularly if you get near the end where it talks about the 3 explanations for why, I lean towards the first

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

[jkapp]

Aug 9, 2011 11:29:44 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Aug 9, 2011 10:41:55 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

He and all of them are in to many cases trying to appeal to everyone and you just can't , and one either believes he inherited a hell of a mess or not any more of a mess then normally given to new POTUS when they come into office.

I wonder if he should have stayed away from the medical , not saying it wasn't important to address , but spend all his time on jobs, economy but then again why should one just stay with one topic, one probklem.

I don't really believe Obama wanted to push so hard for Obamacare for that entire year...IMO it was Pelosi and Reid who were pulling the strings - they've wanted to push through an Obamacare-type bill for years. They saw the best opportunity they had with a majority in both houses and a Dem president. Stupid decision, and a good leader would not allow himself to be lead by the nose by others like that. It seems like his own party respects this president even less than the opposing party does...

[Deleted]

Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

I really appreciate this quote from the article. My friends were shocked when I said I was going to vote for McCain and these were some of the reasons I cited.

I found it especially surprising given that a lot of the criticism leveled at Palin - that she was inexperienced, that she couldn't run the country if something happened to McCain, was also true of Obama and he was going to be the president.

[Deleted]

I don't really believe Obama wanted to push so hard for Obamacare for that entire year...I

I think he did. I think he wanted a big piece of legislation that would have his name on it and change the U.S. - like Roosevelt with the New Deal, Johnson with his War on Poverty. He wanted to succeed where the Clintons failed.

[fairlycrazy23]

They probably could have saved print space by writing the article "Where Obama went right"

[henryclay]

Where did Obama go wrong? Good Lord, where does the list start? He has never failed to remind us of how bad things were, the jobs picture in particular, when he took office. I hope one of his supporters can tell us how any of these things have served as an improvement since then.

Coal mines might be a place. Remember his promise to limit coal production? Oil might be a place. Remember him shutting down off-shore leases? And wood panelling might be a place. Most people don't know that he is responsible for taking wood chips that are used for table tops and furniture and allocating them to be burned by "other designated" manufacturing industries, which only serves to cripple an American industry and promote foreign production of things made from wood chips.

But there are multiples of others. Here are a few. They undoubtedly overlap a lot of collateral industries. These are taken from an article following his speech last Friday on the hiring of veterans:

These veterans tend to be young and many worked in sectors that were among the hardest hit by the recession. Post-9/11 veterans were more likely to be employed in mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation and utilities—all industries that experienced significant drops in employment during 2008-2009.
We agree with the proposition that those industries were hit hard, but who was doing the hitting?

New mining regulations passed under the Obama administration has dramatically hurt mining companies.

Utilities are under attack from the EPA.

Regulations on manufacturing from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the EPA, and OSHA have pushed manufacturers out of the country.

Under Obama, businesses such as Boeing are sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for legally expanding.

When you combine the onerous regulations, the lawsuits, taxes, and Obamacare, one has to understand that people cannot find jobs because the policies of Obama and the Democrats are killing those industries.

[ameiko]

I fail to have credibility in an article that thinks that Obama should have said something like this:

I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out.

Another partisan hack.

1. Much of the Great Recession was due to government interference with the banking system, particularly the demands of the CRA (passed by Carter, strengthened by Clinton, and abused by Obama's ACORN) to force banks to make bad loans.

2. What regulations did the extremist conservatives take down that lead to the devestation? You mean Glass-Steagal? Hey wait, that was CLINTON!

3. The economy recovered post 9/11 and did fairly well... until Democrats came into Congress with their populist spread the wealth, take hikes on the evil rich message and the MSM telling us how financial armageddon was around the corner as they said with Bush I.

Really, a first class lefty shill.

God, I read some more of it. A real hack. Seriously, I wish that the left would at least put out a champion with some damn intelligence and knowledge.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 9, 2011 19:04:46 GMT -5 ameiko said:

I fail to have credibility in an article that thinks that Obama should have said something like this:

I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out.

Another partisan hack.

1. Much of the Great Recession was due to government interference with the banking system, particularly the demands of the CRA (passed by Carter, strengthened by Clinton, and abused by Obama's ACORN) to force banks to make bad loans.

2. What regulations did the extremist conservatives take down that lead to the devestation? You mean Glass-Steagal? Hey wait, that was CLINTON!

3. The economy recovered post 9/11 and did fairly well... until Democrats came into Congress with their populist spread the wealth, take hikes on the evil rich message and the MSM telling us how financial armageddon was around the corner as they said with Bush I.

Really, a first class lefty shill.

God, I read some more of it. A real hack. Seriously, I wish that the left would at least put out a champion with some damn intelligence and knowledge.

"It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out[/b]. But it didn’t work out.[/i]

Your saying it's not true, it is true..are you one who took part in it thus you don't care to be called out..?

If the pubs do get in in the next election you don't think they will raise revenue by more taxes? Possible not on the wealthy but definitly on the rest of us and probably leave the wealthy who Bush protected alone, still saying for the wealthy they will trickle down where as we the average don't have enough to trickle down so best to put the taxes on us rather then them.

[henryclay]

I think it was made POSSIBLE by the likes of Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, and Chris Dodd, with an army of ACORN-like support "peacefully" targeting banks and lenders for NINA loans. None of it happened in the dark, and pushing those things up hill was the only thing the lenders could do. What became of them eventually lays directly at the feet of the people ho made them possible in the first place.

One of the results is that the entire US government is seemingly on its way to being downgraded to NINA status.

[henryclay]

Der Spiegel has a few words on Obama, too, as well as several other foreign news outlets. They are all now singing the same song that many Americans have been singing for over three years. And they have the power Americans don't have.

I only hope they are mericful and don't resort to wet bullwhips as they start laying it on our backsides.

A new financial crisis has gripped the US, Asia and Europe, but Barack Obama can only respond with catchphrases. The United States will remain a "triple-A country," the US president insisted Monday, as stock markets crashed. The most powerful man in the world seems strangely paralyzed.

www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,779179,00.html

[deziloooooo]

Come off it Henry..they knew what they were doing was against all normal and moral banking procedures..whether Frank, Dodd Raines were making mistakes, which they were, for what ever reason..the ones with the money as they cashed those hugh bonus checks because of hugh unnatural earnings knew what was going on, what they were doing, and gave no thought to consequences of problems down the road, thought they would be out of it by then, or had so much stashed away, never get hurt.

There are many reasons for our collapse, debt , financial problems today but for to many Americasn it was the Housing that killed and wiped them out, and to just say it's their own fault , they didn't have to commit as they did, should have known better is bogus.

The fact is the average American is unfamilier with this type of financial doings, belived, past tense, in the expertise, honesty, professional integrity of their neighborhood banker as they have for decades..and there was a trust there ..they had no idea their loans were packagd and sold , and sold and sold again so the neighborhood bank they took the loans out in had no interest in the loans..these packaged investments that were rated AAA were really worth A- if that..and trillions were lost. You don't recover for that kind of F up..plus all the rest of it, industries moving off shore, less people needed to do jobs just because of new technologies.

To take blame for mistakes yes, but to also point out who was at fault and say it will take time..that is not a wrong message to give and he, POTUS, should have been giving that message..and the other side should have been trying to help rather then hinder, yet all they did was say no..more interested in a change in the office no matter what harm it did to you or I.

There are no innocents here and no one wants to take any blame for the mess. no one. You, your party, me, my party, and the independents ..they have no party to speak of, but also take no blame.

All people want to do, see posts here, blame someone..its their fault completly..them selves ? Their S does not smell. Got news for ya, it does just like all others.

Plenty of blame to go around and the turning around is going to take a long , long time.

[henryclay]

Those "high bonus checks" were just everyday business. It was the named culprits that pushed the things, , , and misled tens of thousands of people into thinking they could ride a tidal wave to hoime owenrship.

Keep your "come off it" and get your head on straight, for pete's sake. NONE of it would have happened if the two congressional banking committees Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had not been behind it.

NONE!!!

[ameiko]

Your saying it's not true, it is true..are you one who took part in it thus you don't care to be called out..?

The mortgage crisis was due to the bad mortgage shoved down the banks' throats by government threat and the CRA.

CDO's and the like were the banks trying to make lemonade out of the lemons; it would not have happened without Obama's buddies in ACORN and their cohorts in the government strong arming the banks.

If the pubs do get in in the next election you don't think they will raise revenue by more taxes? Possible not on the wealthy but definitly on the rest of us and probably leave the wealthy who Bush protected alone, still saying for the wealthy they will trickle down where as we the average don't have enough to trickle down so best to put the taxes on us rather then them.

When you make statements like that, you make yourself look foolish.

Bush only protected the wealthy, really? Actually those Bush tax cuts affected everyone who paid taxes. Even OBAMA finally admitted that when he stated that he wanted to make permanent those cuts for the non wealthy.

On what possible ground do you claim that the GOP will not only raise taxes but also only do it on the non wealthy? YOU HAVE NONE!!!

The tax payers are sick of taxes and sick of government spending and they are making themselves heard. If the GOP did try to raise taxes, and certainly if they tried to do so only on the "non rich", the people would not stand it and indeed, the GOP couldn't even hide it since the MSM (wow, they actually have some use) would most gleefully expose them.

Get a clue Dezil, please; you won't look so bad and you might even get some respect.

[ameiko]

Aug 9, 2011 20:41:53 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Those "high bonus checks" were just everyday business. It was the named culprits that pushed the things, , , and misled tens of thousands of people into thinking they could ride a tidal wave to hoime owenrship.

Keep your "come off it" and get your head on straight, for pete's sake. NONE of it would have happened if the two congressional banking committees Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had not been behind it.

NONE!!!

Nice. The Obama White House actually demanded that it be written that the bonuses were kosher only to demonize the bonuses when it suited him, just as he did with the tax break for private jets in his OWN STIMULUS BILL!!!

Also, some of those who received bonuses were doing so in place of, rather than along with, regular salaries. For many, it was the payment at the end of the job; not that SIEU tugs who laid seige to homes, sometimes even attacking children, cared.

[Opti]

Aug 9, 2011 11:36:56 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

CME I am trying to get past the Obama this and that

I bring no Obama this or that.

What I read from the article, particularly if you get near the end where it talks about the 3 explanations for why, I lean towards the first

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

Good, bad or indifferent we get the politician the masses want. W had a great history of running businesses in the ground. Didn't vote for him, didn't want him. The country survived if not as well as I would have liked and this will be similar. I wanted Hillary as I felt she had the experience and coalition building skills needed for the federal level but the Dems picked him and I relucantly voted for him as the lesser Weevil.

So its W, part 2. I pray the masses get a little wiser and no W part 3 appears but I'd settle for the death of the electoral college and for we the people to vote against our representatives kind of like how stockholder voting goes. If you vote you can choose to go with your desires and/or the board's picks. If you don't pick you get what the board wants.

[henryclay]

Optimist, if you can devise a way for Rhode Island to have as much say in an election without the electoral college as they have now, please let us know. As it is, the only people I know of that keep denouncing the electoral college are people from the most heavily populated states.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 9, 2011 23:35:40 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Optimist, if you can devise a way for Rhode Island to have as much say in an election without the electoral college as they have now, please let us know. As it is, the only people I know of that keep denouncing the electoral college are people from the most heavily populated states.

I understand where you are coming from, but there is a reason we have a set number of senators for each state in order to have an equal voice. I'm not sure I would disagree with one person, one vote idea or at the very minimum set up the electoral college where it isn't an all or nothing type of system. Perhaps break it up according the vote in that particular states, if a state has 10 electoral votes and 60% vote R and 40% vote D, then R would get 6 of the votes and D would get 4 of them. While we are at it, why not also do something about the way primaries are set up, which give far too much power to a few less populated states.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 9, 2011 22:03:02 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Your saying it's not true, it is true..are you one who took part in it thus you don't care to be called out..?

The mortgage crisis was due to the bad mortgage shoved down the banks' throats by government threat and the CRA.

CDO's and the like were the banks trying to make lemonade out of the lemons; it would not have happened without Obama's buddies in ACORN and their cohorts in the government strong arming the banks.

If the pubs do get in in the next election you don't think they will raise revenue by more taxes? Possible not on the wealthy but definitly on the rest of us and probably leave the wealthy who Bush protected alone, still saying for the wealthy they will trickle down where as we the average don't have enough to trickle down so best to put the taxes on us rather then them.

When you make statements like that, you make yourself look foolish.

Bush only protected the wealthy, really? Actually those Bush tax cuts affected everyone who paid taxes. Even OBAMA finally admitted that when he stated that he wanted to make permanent those cuts for the non wealthy.

On what possible ground do you claim that the GOP will not only raise taxes but also only do it on the non wealthy? YOU HAVE NONE!!!

The tax payers are sick of taxes and sick of government spending and they are making themselves heard. If the GOP did try to raise taxes, and certainly if they tried to do so only on the "non rich", the people would not stand it and indeed, the GOP couldn't even hide it since the MSM (wow, they actually have some use) would most gleefully expose them.

Get a clue Dezil, please; you won't look so bad and you might even get some respect.

I have a clue Ameiko..and you have no sense of humor..seems I pushed the wrong button there, a bit of tongue in cheek there on who they might and might not raise taxes on seemed to get you.

Revenue has to be raised, the only way that happens is more people in the work force , more taxes receivd and since I don't see that happening for a while , then the only way to raise revenue is by raising taxes..and it will posible be across the board , whether by tax loopholes closing, special interests incentives being curtailed, done away with , even what should have happened, the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy being allowed to go away..and of course cut spending which seems to be finally happening.

"you might even get some respect."

From you I expect none, or care a hoot if it was given.
You have been on the anti Obama shtick, yadda, yadda forever and a day, same BS..little criticisism of the right and their antics..all is on the left, all problems emulate from that direction..100 % of the time..gotten old, tired and really just a skim piece when I see your Nic in most cases..

Also, no sense of humor either..which really is a shame..

[Value Buy]

Aug 10, 2011 7:02:51 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Aug 9, 2011 22:03:02 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Your saying it's not true, it is true..are you one who took part in it thus you don't care to be called out..?

The mortgage crisis was due to the bad mortgage shoved down the banks' throats by government threat and the CRA.

CDO's and the like were the banks trying to make lemonade out of the lemons; it would not have happened without Obama's buddies in ACORN and their cohorts in the government strong arming the banks.

If the pubs do get in in the next election you don't think they will raise revenue by more taxes? Possible not on the wealthy but definitly on the rest of us and probably leave the wealthy who Bush protected alone, still saying for the wealthy they will trickle down where as we the average don't have enough to trickle down so best to put the taxes on us rather then them.

When you make statements like that, you make yourself look foolish.

Bush only protected the wealthy, really? Actually those Bush tax cuts affected everyone who paid taxes. Even OBAMA finally admitted that when he stated that he wanted to make permanent those cuts for the non wealthy.

On what possible ground do you claim that the GOP will not only raise taxes but also only do it on the non wealthy? YOU HAVE NONE!!!

The tax payers are sick of taxes and sick of government spending and they are making themselves heard. If the GOP did try to raise taxes, and certainly if they tried to do so only on the "non rich", the people would not stand it and indeed, the GOP couldn't even hide it since the MSM (wow, they actually have some use) would most gleefully expose them.

Get a clue Dezil, please; you won't look so bad and you might even get some respect.

I have a clue Ameiko..and you have no sense of humor..seems I pushed the wrong button there, a bit of tongue in cheek there on who they might and might not raise taxes on seemed to get you.

Revenue has to be raised, the only way that happens is more people in the work force , more taxes receivd and since I don't see that happening for a while , then the only way to raise revenue is by raising taxes..and it will posible be across the board , whether by tax loopholes closing, special interests incentives being curtailed, done away with , even what should have happened, the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy being allowed to go away..and of course cut spending which seems to be finally happening.

"you might even get some respect."

From you I expect none, or care a hoot if it was given.
You have been on the anti Obama shtick, yadda, yadda forever and a day, same BS..little criticisism of the right and their antics..all is on the left, all problems emulate from that direction..100 % of the time..gotten old, tired and really just a skim piece when I see your Nic in most cases..

Also, no sense of humor either..which really is a shame..

Ameiko has a sense of humor. It is just not your style of humor, so you do not recognize it.
Similar to your use of the term "yadda yadda yadda"
Some get it, some don't.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 10, 2011 9:07:51 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 10, 2011 7:02:51 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

I have a clue Ameiko..and you have no sense of humor..seems I pushed the wrong button there, a bit of tongue in cheek there on who they might and might not raise taxes on seemed to get you.

Revenue has to be raised, the only way that happens is more people in the work force , more taxes receivd and since I don't see that happening for a while , then the only way to raise revenue is by raising taxes..and it will posible be across the board , whether by tax loopholes closing, special interests incentives being curtailed, done away with , even what should have happened, the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy being allowed to go away..and of course cut spending which seems to be finally happening.

"you might even get some respect."

From you I expect none, or care a hoot if it was given.
You have been on the anti Obama shtick, yadda, yadda forever and a day, same BS..little criticisism of the right and their antics..all is on the left, all problems emulate from that direction..100 % of the time..gotten old, tired and really just a skim piece when I see your Nic in most cases..

Also, no sense of humor either..which really is a shame..

Ameiko has a sense of humor. It is just not your style of humor, so you do not recognize it.
Similar to your use of the term "yadda yadda yadda"
Some get it, some don't.

Yada yada isn't put up as a humerouse adjective just to tickle the senses value , it's just a simple word expressing lots of words with no substance, the same old, same old..which really is old and tiring. If you have a better one to use , say blah, blah for example and you would feel a change is necessary just say so, I will be glad to give you and all a variety.

I do notice some others have picked up on the yadda, yadda..so I am thinking it's become semi acceptable as a demonstrative adjective.