This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.
Quote:
These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand.
Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.
Quote:
I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented -- which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.
I wish he'd spent the last 3 years talking like this, but I guess better late than never. He's finally figured out that "compromise" won't work with the extreme right-wing ideologues!
Where's the democratic budget? And he has the nerve to criticize the Paul Ryan budget? Perhaps if he and his party did their job, he'd have a little more credibility.
I find it hilarious that in your quote #2, Obama chastises the Republicans for supposedly not being willing to compromise (something he's shown very little of himself) and then in your quote #3, he pretty much says that there's no middle ground. What we see from that is that Obama defines compromise as "giving me what I want."
Finally, after quoting Obama chastising the Republicans for not being willing to compromise, the OP celebrates her hope that Obama will stop trying to compromise! Ironic, huh.
Last edited by PrivateEyes; 04-04-2012 at 02:13 AM..
raised taxes in an attempt to compromise with the Democrats. They turned around and ran against him as someone who broke a promise. It cost him a second term in office. Lesson learned.
And where is Harry Reid in this matter...he has had the presidents budget on his desk for how long and will not even bring a vote on it even though he as enough votes to pass it? Where is the compromise on the President's side...we can point fingers back and forth until election day, but the only people getting screwed are us!
What we see from that is that the Republicans define compromise as "giving me what I want."
There, PE, I fixed it for you.
As I've tried repeatedly to explain before, it's only a compromise if both parties give something up. The Repubs have been consistently refusing to give up anything for 3 years (longer, really, but we're talking about Obama). Obama never compromised; he capitulated, bending over backward to meet insane demands from Republicans...who then turned around and complained that he didn't go even farther! Yes, damn right I'm glad he talking about stopping that!
Thanks Grav for posting this. I was totally out of the loop last week as I was traveling and am just getting time to catch up.
It's not Obama who has said "I reject the word" when speaking about compromise. That quote came from John Boehner who has repeatedly said they will not compromise. Even when they have agreed on something like the payroll tax cuts, Boehner used it as an attack on Obama, not a celebration that they actually agreed on something. He even claimed that the payroll tax break was not going to create jobs, but then will say the rich need tax cuts because it creates jobs. But then again, this is the leader of the party who complains about over spending and wanted to continur to spend billions on extra jet engines the military did not want, so where's his credibility on spending issues?
Quote:
Where's the democratic budget? And he has the nerve to criticize the Paul Ryan budget? Perhaps if he and his party did their job, he'd have a little more credibility.
First of all, the President presents a budget plan every year. Secondly, Harry Reid also has presented a budget plan. In fact, last year, the CBO found that Reid's budget would save more money than Boehners! Reid has said that he won't bring a budget to the floor this year. It would be a waste of time, and therefore taxpayer money to do so, knowing it has no chance in the House. There's so many filabusters in the Senate, Reid might as well not propose anything really.
Quote:
Where is the compromise on the President's side
He has purposed, several times in various speeches, including the state of the union address and his jobs speech before Congress, to cut medicare. Romney just recently (falsly according to PolitiFact) accused him of being the only President to cut Medicare. In debt talks, and speeches, the President has offered up changes to social security also (he's not calling it cuts but changes). The deal he wanted cut $4 trillion. He didn't compromise as much as throw everything the democrats try to protect under the bus.
04-03-2012, 09:18 PM
Simple View
