Â
President Obama, asked about his low poll numbers and the poor prospects for his re-election, blamed Republican intransigence for the American people's dissatisfaction. He also said rank-and-file Republicans "like the ideas that we put forward."
Â
"It is my job to put forward a vision of the country that benefits the vast majority of Americans," Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview that aired Sunday. "If I can't get Republicans to move, partly because they've made a political, strategic decision that says, 'Anything Obama's for, we're against, because that's our best chance of winning an election,' I don't think the American people would see that as a failure on my part."
Â
Obama said he’d prefer that Republicans have a different attitude: “You know, I've been joking with my staff lately that I think in my next speech, I am going to say, "I am adamantly opposed to investing in education and putting teachers in the classroom. I'm adamantly opposed to rebuilding America and putting construction workers back to work.’ And I'm thinking maybe suddenly Republicans might be for it. But, you know, keep in mind, I'm talking about Republican members of Congress. I'm not talking about Republicans around the country.â€
Â
CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft noted that rank-and-file Republicans "don't like you much better. It's only 7 percent approval rating."
Â
"Yeah, no, I understand,' Obama replied. "But I think that they like the ideas that we put forward. I mean, the interesting thing is the majority of Republicans actually think we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction, including tax increases for the wealthy. The majority of Republicans do think that we should make investments in roads and bridges and improving our airports and investing in basic research -- medical research.
Â
Kroft noted that 75 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, while 54 percent say Obama doesn't share their priorities.
Â
"Steve, here's the thing. As long as [the] unemployment rate is too high and people are feeling under the gun -- day in, day out -- because their bills are going up and their wages and incomes aren't, or they're out of a job, they're going to feel unsatisfied. I mean, there's no secret to this."
Â
At another point in the interview, Obama was asked about the poor prospects for his re-election, based on low poll numbers.
Â
Â
Click above to read more.
Â
Â
****************
Â
People used to worry that Reagan was senile. I think it's more dangerous to have someone in the White House who is so out of touch with reality. Can he really believe that any Republican wants to see him tax the rich more so that he can grow an even bigger government?
Â
If Obama's answers weren't so absurd, they'd be funny. For instance, he claims he hasn't been worried about politics, but the reality is that he's stayed in campaign mode from the day he took office.
Â
Also from the article above:
Â
"And I'll worry about the politics sometime next year," said the president who has spent much of the year traveling around the country, giving campaign speeches that plug his vision for America.
Â
Does he think he's fooling us? Or do you think he really believes the words that come out of his mouth?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 35
Um, no. At the moment I can't think of anything I like, in fact.
"And I'll worry about the politics sometime next year,"
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
J Mickey, remind me to tell you about the training exercise that kindergarten kids can perform better than college grads. :)
Dhammapada: Wisdom of the Buddha
Unfortunate as it is.. The U.S.A. has a non-vigilant President.
Judging by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," President Obama is practically invulnerable. His approval rating is very low.. maybe he missed that little tid bit of information? I dunno?
Yes but It was Bush Jr.'s fault. Yes But remember the Arab Spring. Yes But it is because people do not understand me. Yes but the weather was horrible this past summer. Yes buts.. my proverbial &^%.
Some general characteristics of the evil at work here are listed below and sad for us, evil appears to be back by popular demand. While, satan, masquerading as 'an angel of light,' can only oppress Christians to the extent God allows, but satan's captains still have the rest of humanity to trap and train as counterfeit "ministers of righteousness and Lord help us, there's LOTS of them flailing about....... Deceived masses who flow with all the social changes of our day while denying the realities of God, has put everyone at risk.1 John 5:19"...the whole world is under the sway of the evil one." As for obama, he's just another in a LONG line of evil's blinded and deceived captains, being driven to carrying out the enemy's wishes......
Evil Defies God and despises truth. (John 8:44)
It commands a hierarchy of demons. (Eph. 6:10-12)
Masquerades as "an angel of light." (2 Cor. 11:14-15)
BUT comes to steal, kill and destroy. (John 10:10)
Rules the masses that are outside God’s protection. (Eph. 2:1-3)
Tries to hide the actual truth (2 Cor. 4:3-4)
Twists Scriptures to fit his purposes. (Gen. 3:1-5)
Offers counterfeit promises he can't fulfill. (Gen. 3:4-5)
Always seeks an "opportune time" to tempt. (Luke 4:13)
He responded to a Kroft question, saying that it wasn't fair to be judged "against the ideal." But then he said "Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative."
Whoa!!! What's the alternative to the Almighty?
After all Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, dedicated Rules for Radicals, Obama's bible, to Lucifer:
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
Whatever name you apply to him, it appears Obama has finally gotten in touch with his inner self. OBAMA FINALLY GETS IN TOUCH WITH HIS INNER SELF
Look at what is happening in those states that now have Republcan governors. Have you ever seen so many recalls?
Ohio is one state where the union thugs lied to people so that the bill that would have saved us wouldn't pass. They're the same thugs trying to get Republicans recalled. And, you do realize that one guy admitted to having signed the petition 80 times in Wisconsin, don't you? Yes, Mary Ann, you should be so proud of these persons who love Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tELtKMPKAq4
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70429.html
The Government Accountability Board, which will then review the signatures, indicated Wednesday board members would consider names like Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler valid as long as they are properly dated and accompanied by a Wisconsin address.
Responding, the Wisconsin Republican Party announced Thursday that it had filed a lawsuit seeking to eliminate “patently false names” and duplicates from the petition.
Currently, it’s the responsibility of Scott Walker’s campaign to challenge any signatures they find suspicious within 10 days of the petition’s filing. The Wisconsin Republican Party says that means they would have the impossible task of examining and verifying more than 540,000 signatures in 10 days - averaging to over 50,000 signatures a day.
The lawsuit asks the court to direct the Government Accountability Board to “look for and eliminate facially duplicative signatures, patently fictitious names and illegible addresses during their careful examination of the petition.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70511.html#ixzz1gpfKQjPQ
Yes, you should be so proud.
Rank and file Republicans do like President Obama's proposals because they (his proposals) are their proposals from a decade ago. They are identical to ideas like those of Newt Gingrich and others from 1996-8. All of a sudden, because they're coming out of a Democrat's mouth, they're heinous. But look at the proposals from the 90s coming out of the Republican mainstream. They are identical. Particularly on taxation and job creation. Now, however, the party has shifted to the right sufficiently that any increases in revenue (which is necessary for the common good as long as we have bills to pay), are wrong. That conception is simply fallacy. In order to be able to decrease taxes beyond our already deficit levels, you have to cut one of the programs that we can't cut without it being political suicide. So someone needs to man-up and accept that the other party is going to (probably legitimately) slam them for cutting these 'uncuttable' programs, accept that they're going to lose the next election cycle irrevocably, and cut them severely. Then, and only then, can you responsibly cut taxes.
The only other approach is the one that President Obama is putting forward and which Republicans of the 90s put forward as the path to continued growth. You lower taxes on the middle class, raise taxes (usually by cutting deductions etc) on the wealthy, and count on increases in consumption to drive economic growth which, in turn, will result in economic demand and increased production. That increased economic activity, in theory, will make up for the fact that taxes are too low to cover the exploding costs of 'mandatory' programs.
If, in fact, Republicans now don't like this last plan, it is because Republicans no longer thing it is conservative enough and Democrats now think it is. If this isn't a shift to the right from the 1990s, I don't know what is.
Republicans have been all for tax reform as code for ending up paying more in taxes because you eliminate credits, write-offs, and other exceptions (at least they have since Reagan). Simplifying the tax-code means having a single (or few) rates with little to no way to reduce your taxes below that percentage. The problem with the tax code as it stands is that the rich usually pay a smaller percentage than the middle class or lower because of the deductions that are available to them (and are not usually available to those with less means). That said, of course they're going to pay more of the total revenues, because they have all the money to pay (with the vast majority of American wealth being held by a relatively few individuals).
The Republican conventional tax plans themselves would nominally increase the amount of money paid by the rich in taxes because it would constrict them to paying the percentage rather than being able to reduce that percentage to near zero through deductions.
Republicans like that plan. Simplified tax code. Or am I wrong in that? Do they want the rich to be able to avoid the majority of taxation through deductions and loop-holes?
He's not lying. You are seeing a lie where you want to see one because you won't believe anything that a prominent Democrat says at face value (don't get me wrong, politicians of all stripes are prone to it and there are very few honest ones like Ron Paul). Just because I may disagree philosophically with Ron Paul's approach to governance, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that he's an honest man. Likewise, in this case, President Obama has made genuine efforts to appeal to fiscal conservatives, and they've been rebuffed as 'liberal' ideas when, in fact, they are identical to conservative ideas.
I don't have any problem with wanting to streamline and, yes, even lower tax rates. My issue is that we have to be honest with ourselves and understand that, to get there, we have to cut intensely popular programs that will probably mean political suicide for the reformer(s). Republicans have not been (historically) willing to do this. Simultaneously, Republicans have been at the forefront of tax cuts, loopholes, and deductions resulting in vastly fewer dollars coming into the Federal government to pay for these hyper-popular (and predominantly Republican constituency-based) programs.
As of 2010, the medium income was approximately $50,000. On average, the rule of thumb regarding expenditures is no more than 50% of income should be spent on housing. An additional 20% on transportation. And an additional 20% distributed between necessities like food and water and healthcare. That accounts for 90% of our $50,000 and does not include savings or recreation. So how much of that remaining 10% do you recommend should go towards taxes? Or do we push the whole scale down so that the family that lives on $50,000 now should live on $35,000 or less in the future?
Is that fair?
There is a lot of delusion but its coming from the GOP and their supporters.
I do think there's some truth in the idea that a lot of Republicans support a lot of the ideas that Obama and other Democrats have put forth. Things like not changing Social Security and Medicare, increased marginal tax rates for the wealthy, and others have polled well across party lines.