- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 281
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It may be difficult to find a candidate to vote for, but you can ALWAYS find at least one to vote against.
Democrats have decided to delay the tax cuts bill vote until after the election.
I’ll refrain from voting in general elections until the tax bill reaches the floors of both Congressional houses and the bill is voted upon the House of Representatives’ floor.
I fully support Obama’s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. I’d prefer that the discounted tax rates for long term capital gains incomes be eliminated and replaced with more populist tax cuts.
Since leaving the service in 1959, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Finally since 2008 I’m no longer voting for the least evil and I require a candidate (at minimum) to substantially concur with my opinion upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goal. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.
Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.
Obama’s campaign office had written, (but I’ve never actually found a direct quote from Obama), that he was a proponent of the federal minimum wage pegged to a cost of living adjustment, (i.e. COLA). Based only upon that minimal but substantial agreement I voted for Obama. I now fear that his behavior thus far gives me good reason to fear Obama and the Democrats will acquiesce to Republicans. If Obama’s administration increases the minimum wage, Democrats will not press for it also being thereafter COLA’d.
A COLA’d minimum wage rate will not substantially improve USA’s economy but it is certainly an improvement of a non-COLA’d minimum wage. Any significant federal minimum wage is preferable to an ineffective minimum wage. I suppose it is feasible for a minimum wage rate to be excessive and detrimental to an economy. The greater harm occurs within jurisdictions adjoining others having inadequate wage scales and goods and persons have unrestricted passage over their borders. I have never encountered a historical reference to a nation’s economy being harmed by an excessive minimum wage. I don’t believe there’s ever been an excessive minimum wage within any nation.
Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. I appreciate the federal health act’s future benefits to our nation. Obama and the Democratic Party acted despicably to achieve an inferior bill’s passage. Democrats offered exceptions to a few states rather than negotiating and arguing for consideration to help all congressional districts with inadequate availability of health facilities. If such honorable negotiation couldn’t sway senators of less densely populated states, it would have certainly “held their feet to the fire”.
I am not angry because of what he and his party failed to achieve. I’m furious of what positions he surrendered without fully negotiating for anything better. Politics is not a dirty word and negotiation is respectable. Acquiescence and submission are despicable words and are generally cowardly and despicable acts.
It is my patriotic duty not to vote for a party that leads in the wrong direction or a second party that lacks leadership and has no definite direction. The Republicans will lead us until we recognize that it’s the wrong direction. Retaining no consistency of direction, Democrats are unable to correct our nation’s course.
I will not vote for any Democrats until Obama and his party finds and retain some courage. Thus far it appears that I will not vote for Obama in 2012.
Respectfully, Supposn
Why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
SamSmart, Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.
Obama spoke of a “government option”. Almost every extended family in the United States is somewhat directly familiar with Medicare. To a vast predominant majority, almost all of those who use or whose parents use Medicare insurance are very pleased with Medicare. I listened to the crowds and speakers during the protests against any federal health plan. Almost all of the elderly and many of their children that were opposed to any federal health insurance were entirely satisfied and appreciative of Medicare. They knew what Medicare is. All they know about the “public option” is that it now doesn’t exist and it is to be feared because it is “liberal”. Every time he spoke of “public option” rather than “Medicare” or “similar to Medicare” or “like Medicare”, he lost voter and congressional support.
Too few other than Obama knew what he meant by “public option” and thus too many accepted Republicans’ definition of the concept. He fell in love with the words rather than explaining it’s like Medicare.
After crippling his own agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage.
The Defense Department is doing studies on “don’t ask, don’t tell”. That’s a political question that the generals and admirals would much rather not get involved with. Truman did not ask generals if they believed the armed services should be desegregated. He only asked how they could best achieve the policy that he as commander-in-chief has determined to be in our best interests. If Obama has determined that gays in the military are in our nation’s best interest, the policy should by now be in place. If he is not so convinced, then he should have not brought it up.
If Guantanamo prison should be closed, it should have been done by now. I agreed with Obama’s professed concept that we should be proud to demonstrate how a democratic republic’s public courts operate. If he has reason to reconsider, Obama should explain himself to the voters and the remainder of the world.
I may disagree with many Republican presidents’ policies but I respect an executive that knows what he believes to be our nation’s best interests and fully strives to obtain the passage and enactment of those government policies. Obama ain’t like that.
Respectfully, Supposn
Because, supposedly, Obama want's those bills passed, so it's his responsiblity.So, again, why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
Because, supposedly, Obama want's those bills passed, so it's his responsiblity.
Why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
Sam Smart, you continue to ask the same question and continue to ignore the answer in response to your question. This is excerpted from message #8:
………………………… “After crippling his own, (i.e. Obama’s) agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage”.
Respectfully, Supposn
I won't vote in 2010
It should be an offence in the USA not to vote,so if u dont vote but u want all the benfits i say
u get none,that is fair,what do u think lads.
mikeey
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?