Yes We Can, But... Obama on Jon Stewart Show

So how is this unusual or peculiar to Democrats? Republican have had trouble too.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the budget handed to Democrats had huge deficits baked into it for current years and many years to come.

Do you have any proof that george II's tax cuts were more effective than Obama'a stimulus? Before Obama's stimulus package, the nation was loosing almost a million jobs a month and the nation's economy was shrinking at an ever increasing rate...peaking at almost 7 percent. After the stimulus, the nation STOPPED loosing jobs and started addding private sector jobs (now for 9 months in a row) and the economy is now growing at a modest 2-3 percent versus shrinking. That is a 10 point positve change in GDP growth rate. The George II tax cuts never produced anything remotely close to Obama's stimulus package. So let's see some proof of your claim Mad.

George II's spending did little for the economy. It took dollars out of the treasury and sent them to China....exacerbating a deficit which added to the national debt making it much more dificult to respond the Great Recession II.

As to that little thing in 2001, that was not much of a hit on the economy. Within a couple of months everything in the economy was back to normal in the economy. And that had nothing to do with Georgie's tax cuts.

And speaking of those tax cuts, that's one more area in which Obama and his merry band of Democrats have failed. By not acting to either definitively extend the Bush tax cuts or let them die, we get to suffer both from the expectation of higher taxes and of increasing debt.

A couple of minor details for you...not that they will matter to you. But just how is it that Obama is following Hoover/FDR policies? Answer, he is not. The Obama administration and Democrat congres have been much faster to respond to the economic crisis than Hoover and FDR. Two, the picture Obama faces is different that the situation faced by Hoover and FDR.

They did not have the fiscal morass George II and his merry band of Republicans handed Obama. They had a fiscally sound government.

Just how is it that President Obama is the king of debt? It was handed to him by George II and his merry band of Republicans.

Funny, I don't recall you complaining about it when I was complaining about it years ago? And if so, why do continue to support those who wrought this legislation on the land?

Two how do you know I am a committed Democrat? Just because I am not a koolaid drinking Republican, it does not mean I am a Democrat.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion? And what is your alternative? How are you going to get healthcare costs in line with those of other industrial nations? Be specific and show some proof please...none of this reduce liability for malpractice law suits without showing in detail how much cost it will take out of the system.

It is not annoying to me in the least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The delusion that you labor under is that the Democrats are.

Your corner of the world is small and irrelevant, ideologically speaking.

It's not totally to blame, but don't pretend that it has played no role. People were told their premiums would not go up and they could keep their doctors. That's not happening. And Obama essentially gave the insurance companies (the assholes who ARE the problem) a huge chunk of new business, which is precisely why the stock of said companies surged the day after the bill was signed. So as was the case with the banks, we now have major profiteering occurring on the backs of American tax dollars. And this is supposed to be his -- and the Democratic legislature's -- big achievement this year?

Nice attempt to paint me a racist. Try again.

And we can and should judge them by what they did with that power and reach our own conclusions. In contrast, people like you and Joe are whining that the Democrats should not be judged on about four years in power, because they didn't have as MUCH power. So what? That's a cheap relativistic argument. If they did poorly with a few levers, why turn all of them over to them? That's like letting someone who has done a shitty job painting one room of your house paint the whole thing.

Oh, please grow up. Your attempts to erroneously label me (again) have been noted. I'm the one castigating both parties, so lumping me in with one of them defies logic. I've said I don't believe in partisanship and haven't since I got out of politics. It's a game, nothing more. You, on the other hand, firmly have decided to accept one side is evil. So who's a factionalist? Who is a propagandist? And behaving childlike?

And why are they split? Because many of the policies Obama is pushing are tremendously unpopular -- and they know it, or are finding out.

Blow it out your ass.

You're so full of hot air and insult it's a waste of time to deal with you. Rather than actually even deal with what I'm saying, you're setting up your favorite little Straw Man and attempting to rhetorically chain me to him because it's more fun to beat on me that way (and saves you the time of having to make anything like a real argument). That's a bullshit, cheap debating tactic I witnessed back in high school and so I'm certainly not going to waste my time responding to it in the here and now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what I keep running into is dull and (because) essentially uninformative softball stuff, the net effect of which is to mislead badly;

like this interview, in which Karl Rove is allowed to lie at length and pimp his ass-covering book with the occasional genteel questions moving us from one topic to the next - few if any (it's a video, so memory lapses) of which are the hard hitting journalist's characteristic tool, followup questions:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10908

Jon Stewart got more mileage out of his eight minutes or whatever with Obama than Rose gets from 40+ with Rove, and that's typical.

They have been split in this way, as I term things, since Obama was in law school, since before the Rep Court handed Florida to W, since before Clinton faced impeachment after a forty million dollar special prosecution had come up empty, since before Iran Contra even - - and you know it.

That's a deliberate lie, in other words, and you are not allowed to pretend it's some kind of accident. What it is is you carrying water for the corporate right, and promoting Republican political interests, and handing us wingnut propaganda once again.

The Republicans used to be split in a similar way, used to be an ordinary political Party - Gingrich et al levered from Reagan and got them all lined up, got rid of the "moderates", and created the modern Rep Party - which is what you are promoting, the power seekers whose cause you advance, when you parrot the corporate spin of {both sides/ Dems with power vs Reps with power/ judge "them" (identified by Party) the same} and so forth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This!

 

I didn't want to wait for Tuesday, and voted tonight. Straight Democratic ticket.
Obama deserves a full four years to get us out of this hole. It might take more, but the job wont get done with further gridlock and stonewalling.

 

I voted one time and that was the first year i was eligible. I hardly recognized the names, honestly in the whole list that just kept going on and on, i recognized one or two name. Being that everyone where i lived was democrat i just looke for the "D" and pushe dthe button. Although its good to vote but i cant see it being a requirement.

 

HA....wth did you get this impression from? Thats like saying the people watching SNL in 1975 were the best informed. What would make people think this?

 

“

”

Doesn't matter, the Constitution gives both House leeway to formulate their own procedure, and rules.

Section 5 Article 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

spidergoat maybe you need to study the history of Democrat and Filibusters, it would shock you, I think the term is "turn a bout" is fair play.

Yes, a long and inglorious history of Filibusters with no sign of bipartisanship, and a lot of obstruction.

Well where is the 2011 Budget? it hasn't even been submitted, why? what don't the Democrats want us to see before the election.

 

Republicans don't want a recovery. They want Obama.
Like Gollum falling into the lava, admiring the ring.

 

The reported research surveys on the topic. There have been several, of various kinds - it's more or less an established - at least credible - claim.

From Wiki:

 

Those are not good analytical sources to judge from. I have watched parts of the show but not a regular viewer. It is funny that people make statements like that even though the show is on "Comedy Central".

 

Which ones - the University research programs, the polling and survey organizations, or all such intellectual type stuff together?

People can't make well-supported statements about shows on "Comedy Central"? Why not?

 

I think all of them. First consider that these polls are not large enough and dont encompass a broader spectrum of the public. We dont know the questions asked, who they asked, how it was presented etc. May make some interesting reading in a tabloid but hardly an accurate representation. Then you have the psychological ramifications of low expectations.

 

The university research articles published their methods, the polling organizations publish their stat error, etc. The sample sizes are large enough for statistical significance, in all cases.

What would "low expectations" have to do with recording the answers to survey questions in a random sample of the population?

 

Good for you. We have mail-in voting here and I dropped mine in the box on Monday. Voted primarily Democrat with a few Libertarian votes thrown in on the races I felt the Dems were sure to win.

 

not really the democrats have rarely used the filibuster this is you as usual misrepresenting history

 

There is, of course, a huge issue of causality and correlation there. Specifically, the survey, as described, does not claim that the viewers are more informed BECAUSE they watch the Daily Show, it only states they are more informed. Indeed, one says there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. It's easy to imagine that more politically informed people watch the Daily Show because to appreciate its satire you have to be informed. The same goes for the Onion, but nobody would claim the Onion was "informing" people. They would only claim informed people read it. Similarly, I avoid cable news precisely because I am informed, so the value of this study is what, exactly?

Sure, I know the Democratic party is less monolithic than the Republican party, but I am not talking ancient history here. I am talking Dems not backing the president and openly running against his policies. Policies which are woefully unpopular. That's not the kind of environment in which it is reasonable to expect Republicans to jump on board.

Now if you want to talk about polarization of the political spectrum and why the current climate is what it is, that is a larger and more complicated discussion. But to pretend it's one party's fault? Entirely? That's just stupid.

So now I am liar? Because I express an opinion not line line with your own? Please...

I'm promoting nothing, Ice.

I've never voted for the Republicans or supported them in my life. In fact, I view them as intergal part of the failed political system that is dysfunctionally driving America into the toilet, and have said as much, consistently for quite some time now. And the fact you apparently cannot recognize this, though it on the screen in front of you, and cannot make an argument without juvenile and obvious attempts of wrongly labeling me, of intentionally practicing guilt by association is nothing but further proof that you're interested in little else but personalizing any debate with me -- or anyone else who dares question your horrendously lopsided and silly worldview -- and scoring self-inflating points by behaving like an ass.

 

Unless they asked\polled a few dozen million then i cant see how.

 

Yes, pj, in your PC revision of political history.

 

I did not see where Ice implied causality...merely a statement of fact. But it is interesting that audiences of programming frequented by right wingers are not known for being well informed.

You seem to equate popularity with correctness. As pointed out in many studies, Americans are not well informed on a whole range of issues. And given the amount of disinformation fed to them during the first year of the Obama presidency, is it any wonder that some of his policies are unpopular.

Most people think healthcare reform was bad. But then when they are queried about the specifics of the law they like it. The misinformed can hardly be expected to make good decisions.

I would like to see some proof why it is stupid to blame one party for this polarization. Democrats are not on the nations radio waves every day spreading lies and misinformation. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are not Democrats, nor is Faux News.

I think most people who read your posts know that you like to represent yourself as being above it all. But the reality is you are always defending Republcians/Tea Partiers and attacking non Republicans. And you fail to acknowlege facts that do not support your defense of Republican/Tea Party positions.