"I love both Dan and Wendy. I love those guys. They work so hard. The center-quarterback relationship is a pretty special one. I've got my hands on their butts probably more than their wives, so it's a pretty unique trust and relationship you have."
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
This is a site that thrives on people giving their opinion....in this case it's about opinion about an opinion.
Sorry, but you are way off in right field on this one. The mainstream right wing agenda on taxes is to never raise them, for any reason, no matter what. Especially, and most importantly, NEVER raise taxes on the top 1%...and in fact their agenda is to LOWER taxes even further particularly on the top 1%. They would like to eliminate taxes on Capital Gains, dividends and savings.No please explain the difference with examples if you can. Its not centrist, its pandering to the middle class, which isn't necessairly centrist. A centrist would know that we need to cut expenditures responsibily while also increasing revenues on all groups not just targetting one group because its low lying fruit. Obama doesn't want to do that he wants to pander to middle and lower class (voter base) with the GOP tax cut and then hike it up on the upper class. That's just creative, not centrist.
Their spending agenda is to drastically cut spending, almost exclusively on those expenditures that benefit the bottom 95%...Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps...and particularly Medicaid, which benefits the poor and elderly (after their assets are drained to pay for long term care). Their agenda also has the things they like to have huge increases in spending...mainly defense.
The far left agenda (that is virtually non-existant today), is to raise taxes on the top 1% to heights not seen since the 70's. Top rate of 70% and higher. Remember, the big squabbling is about raising the top rate on only that taxable income above about $250,000 4.6 percentage points. From 35% to 39.6%. They would like to see the cap taken off income taxed for Social Security....big increases in taxes on Wall Street Transactions...HUGE increases on energy, like Europe and multi dollar taxes per gallon of gas. The far left would love to see the Capital Gains tax rate to go up from it's present 15% to 30%...or higher.
A far left agenda would have huge increases in social spending, like extending Medicare for all....increasing "welfare", and just about every other spending for the poor and middle class that you can think of. They would have huge cuts to defense spending....reductions like 25% to 50% off present spending.
What is Obama proposing? Only increase taxes on the top two marginal rates from 33% to 35% and from 35% to 39.6%. He wants to raise the Capital Gains tax rate from 15% to 20%. He already has instituted targeted tax increases for Obamacare that mainly hit the middle classes....like limiting the deductibility on expensive health care benefits that mainly go to blue collar union workers...new tax on durable medical equipment like wheel chairs, tax on tanning salons etc...
His plan to only raise the top two rates for federal income tax was a 2008 campaign promise. During his first term, he went along with extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years on all income levels becasue of Republican hostage taking. He lowered taxes on small businesses. In the 2009 "Stimulus" law he lowered taxes for a myriad of things....tax rebate for all taxpayers...raising the income limit for educational expenses (this one put over $2000 in my pocket)...and many other temporary changes tax code to help spur the economy. He lowered the Social Security tax rate for two years for all taxpayers.
On the spending side, he has backed decreasing the rate of increases. During the debt limit fiasco he was prepared to institute future reductions in Social Security and Medicare. He has proposed slowing the rate of increase of defense spending.
The very concept of "centrist" is to find middle ground between the extremes. Obama has done this with tax and spending policy. To deny it is to deny reality.
In any event, the author of this opinion piece trying desperately to push a flawed and weak premise, does not even mention tax and spending policy.
See my explanation above. In responding to an opinion piece, one gives opinions. Mine are backed up by facts.Again opinion, not fact.
The author of the opinion piece that started this thread, did not.
He said that the two things that proves that Obama "ceded the center" (which in and of itself means that Romney "took" the center, which is demonstrably FALSE) is Cap and Trade and Obamacare. he is wrong on both counts. I have given facts to back my opinion.
Because the author has done a terrible job of presenting a coherent argument supporting his premise. I have written more than he has refuting his silliness. You choose not to accept it because...actually, I don't know why because you have not presented a coherent argument either.These are two issues that had chances to pass both houses and were two large parts of the campaign that got him elected. You're ability to just wave them off as 'just two issues' shows a clear lack of understanding to the author's point and the context to which they were presented under the campaign.
Rally?? Please give some proof for this. I don't believe that for one nano second. The Republican plan was to oppose Obama at every turn. When Cap and Trade came up, there was not 60 Democrats seated in the Senate. The chances of Graham to force cloture is ridiculous. You want to try and go back and present some proof...have at it.Where was the proposal by the President? Where was the effort to court Graham (the 60th vote who was previously partnered with Kerry and Lieberman), the Democrats lost the vote because they wanted to not, because of some a filibuster they could of busted had they wanted to.
In any event, what you are trying to say is that Obama cannot be considered a centrist because he did not go rushing to the Senate to negotiate cloture of Republican filibuster?? That is as silly as the authors premise.
Well the obvious and large difference that I hope you would know would be the massive medicare changes Obamacare has that Romneycare can't. That alone make the bills more than just slightly different. Some other differences are;
-OCare Full Coverage Till 26, RCare Tiered Coverage Till 26
-Ocare Medicaid for Families up to 133% below poverty, RCare Medicaid for Families up to 150% below poverty
-Premium Support Models with regard to reforming Medicare is one thing they completely disagree on. RCare introduces vouchers, while OCare cuts 716 Billion by reducing reimbursements
-RCare Any Company with 11+ FT workers must offer car, OCare only large companies 50+ FT must offer care
Those are just some of the many differences that can be listed.
You really want to put forward the argument that Obamacare and Romneycare are not the "same" because of these minutiae differences? These are distinctions without a difference.
The premise of universal health care between Romneycare and Obamacare are virtually IDENTICAL.
Take away the most onerous health insurance rules like rejection for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, dropping a customer because they feel like it after one gets sick...and in exchange, require that everyone either obtain health insurance from their employer, of but on the open market. To facilitate that purchasing in the open market (which is THE most expensive way to buy insurance), an exchange is formed that encourages insurance companies to price policies like in any other large group. To help those that cannot afford it, subsidies are made available.
They are identical, and the minor differences you presented are meaningless.
There are no "massive Medicare changes" in Obamacare that are not needed in the first place. And of course Romneycare did not change Medicare, because the states cannot do so!!! It's a federal program!!!
Republicans have been calling for medicare reform for years. Now Obama makes a stab at it, and he's vilified for not being "centrist"?!?!? What a silly argument.
In any event, the author says that Obamacare as passed "has little in common with what was campaigned on"...is false.
I addresses this above. Prove it.No I dont, can you please explain it? You completely ignore that Graham was enough to crack the filibuster the Dems let him go, there was also no bill crafted by the President's office and put into congress for Cap and Trade. Why was that? Why did he give away a cornerstone piece of his campaign without even offering legislative langugage? You guys have left him off the hook on it and its sad.
First, there is not $716 in "cuts". That is Republican bull****, and I'm surprised you are trying on that tired debunked talking point.There was 716 Billion dollars in cuts announced on the campaign trail? Oh please show me the literature or the speeches where he says this. I dare you.
And, second of all, Obama ran on eliminating the subsidy for Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage was put in place by Republicans that thought that private insurance could cover the elderly by offering plans that competed with traditional Medicare. They said that private insurance companies could offer more coverage for less money.
The only way that private health insurance companies would offer these policies (when they found, predictably that they could not compete and still maintain huge profits) was that the federal government had to subsidize these policies. 17% of the cost of the policies is the figure that sticks in my mind. Srtudies also showed that these people were not getting any better outcomes.
Here is the Politifact Fact Checker that shows that Obama made the promise in the campaign and kept it.
The fact of the matter, is that Obama ran on health care reform, and delivered. the plan he ran on closely resembles the plan that passed. The author is 100% wrong on this point, and should be ashamed for trying on such bull****.
The crux of the problem after the midterms, he had a congress he could work with for two full years. His issue was he used up all his capital pushing Obamacare through.[/quote]
Obama got many, many things down during his first two years, despite unprecedented and unified obstruction. He only had two months of 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, where the Republicans have perverted democracy and REQUIRE a Super Majority for EVERYTHING. The constitution was not written to allow such obstructionism, and it has NEVER been practiced in our history like this.
Additionally, the continual lying about simple facts had the low turnout midterm go against the Democrats. The price to pay for brave policies like health care reform which the GOP has decided, after it was THEIR idea in the first place, is all of a sudden "socialism" and a "government takeover".
The GOP berated the Dems for "sitting" Medciare, when the same Republican Party voted to END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT!! It's a cynical game of scorched Earth politics that is imperative that we not allow to succeed.
Your sarcasm is stupid.Yea only one side ever lies and the other side is perfect, totally centrist view point. Please tell me again that I've not been paying attention that totaly substantiates your arguments. Its easy to make arguments when you live in a world that is not within reality.
No one said that the "other side is perfect"...except you.
You have not been paying attention...or you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. I don't. I live in the real world where 2+2=4. The whole Romney campaign is based on lies and distortion. If you don't believe that fact, then you are beyond help that a simple discussion board can bring you.
BTW...I do not agree with "centrism"...but, to say that Obama has "ceded the center" is just not based on reality.
GOP members and their supporters. LOTS of people are arguing that the GOP has not only not come off the rails, but they are the voice of the "Real" America. Listen to talk radio for a little bit. I do sometimes, and it's downright scary!Nobody is arguing the rails haven't come off the GOP. Im a card carrying Republican who voted for Obama four years ago and will be voting for him again in 6 days. Im not a conservative, and Im certainly not ok with my party being hijacked by Christian Fundamentalist thinking. Who in God's name was arguing the GOP was even right, let alone sane?
I hope so. The Democratic Party is already in the center (for the most part). The GOP is so far to the right that it skews the meaning of "centrist".Parties go through cycles, they always have and always will. Both parties are lieing at current extremes (American Model, not International) and soon both parties will come back to center a good bit (2016 or 2022 would be my guess), they have to because they both continue to alienate the centrist and independent voter.
I now see why people don't argue with you very often. Have a nice day.
TAKE IT BACK! In all seriousness I like them both but lately have had a craving for Pepsi. As for as the low calorie soda goes though its not close Pepsi Maxx >>>>>> Coke Zero.
All diet sodas suck except maybe Diet 7-Up. It's passable if there is nothing else. I'm a big rum & coke drinker so it HAS to be coke. Even better if it's Limon & Coke and the best is Pineapple Cruzan Rum & coke! I can drink Pineapple rum & Coke all day long on a beach while I play volleyball. :)
obamas blunder wasnt obamas blunder at all. he went to the center to try to please everyone. no one else wanted to go that route. liberals. conservatives. they refused to budge. he was abandoned by both sides, IMO. and thats where he really failed as a president.
oh yeah, some of his policies suck, but overall, i think he did an OK job trying to make a difference. problem is no one would help him.
all regular soda is terrible
drink vernors and faygo.
But I agree with noticon, people will vote against their best interests if they vote for Romney.