Forum Post: Don't vote for Obama
Posted 11 years ago on July 4, 2012, 7:04 a.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If you want the paul ryan budget
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Once again I must point out that congress passes the budget.
this is why when repubs blame Obama for massive spending it's usually mostly false because congress passes the budget.
Saying that the Ryan budget would get passed because of Romney is like saying Obama is going to end GTMO
Romney SAYS he supports the Ryan budget
And you know what that means
He has to support something
Since he has not stated any policies of his own
[ I've hear a rumor that he is going to follow his Bain process
sell off the national parks to finance a millionaire's tax cut ]
Romney is indeed a capitalist pig.
FYI- Obams SIGNED an order to close gitmo
but since the republiclans would not finance relocating the prisoners, it could not close.
Yes. That's exactly my point. Congress has a fuck ton of power. And when it comes to the budget, that is the role of congress.
On or before the first Monday in February, the President submits to Congress a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. (In years where there is a change in administration, the budget is submitted later.) This budget request is developed by the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website.
The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.
Key points
"The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions"
"Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees."
Never said the president doesn't have input... I just pointed out that saying Romney can pass the Ryan budget is like saying Obama can just close GTMO.
doesn't GTMO fall under executive power ?
When you said "it's usually mostly false because congress passes the budget." I thought you were implying Obama had nothing to do with it. The budget for 2010 and 2011 when through pretty much unchanged from what Obama put in there. Remember the house was 70% Dems in 2009 and 2010.
All that aside, the part they fiddle with is small compared to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, Safety net programs and the interest on the debt which make up make up 80% of the budget.
But didn't Romney come out in support of the Ryan budget?
Yes he did. He also said that he believes corporations are people.
My point is that this post basically says Romney has a power he does not have. Congress does the budget.
Same reason why Obama's first health care reform plan failed... because of the powers of Congress.
Wow your smart. Congress does the budget? Who signs it?
Who can overturn a veto?
Congress.
Sign it or not... congress writes the budget. Presidents kind of just have the power of peer pressure on this issue.
You'd probably be agreeing with me on this argument if I used it to defend Obama against attacks of being an "over spender" ... because congress is in charge of the budget.
I don't deny your assertion that congress is in charge of the budget. But the President matters. Perhaps we disagree on that. Who is president matters. Perhaps we disagree on that. I don't know. Perhaps we disagree that Romney and Obama are vastly different. But I think they would have different budget priorities. And I think it matters. Thats all.
Who is president matters, I fully agree with that... commander in chief... war power / military power... but on the issue of a budget that has majority support, 2/3 or more, then the president actually does not matter.
Obama signing Bush tax cuts is a great example of not getting your way
I'm just pointing out that Romney becoming president doesn't not mean the Ryan budget because that's the job of congress. They could even sneak in unwanted provisions into bills that "have to get passed" ... which they do so often
Obama extended the Bush 1% tax cuts 'cause repubs wouldn't agree to extend the middle class Bush tax cuts. So Obama got a 2 year sunset provision for the 1% Bush tax cuts. And we are comin up on that. So what is gonna happen. Are the 1% tax cuts gonna get extended again.? I don't think so and I think that is the difference a President can make.
But to be successful in dumping the wealthy tax cuts and keep the needed tax cuts for those just getting by - We need to start a campaign of the people to support the proper legislation.
Buffet them and then some - Warren Buffet proposal as it is called is not enough.
Bump it up to 40 or even 60%.
The wealthy will not be hurt. They are - after all - wealthy.
A millionaire getting taxed at 90% is still making 100,000 a year.
The rich are doing fine. Plus the ignorant repub theory that lower taxes for the rich creates jobs has already been proven a failure.
Agreed.
FDR created a 94% tax rate for income over a million dollars I would go that high in a NY minute.
No one would pay it though, because of all the loopholes.
Just like now.
Tax code needs to be crushed 100% before any talk of graduating income taxes is meaningful.
Get rid of loopholes for the 1%. Simple. Done!
That would be awesome and when you consider the amount of money we are talking about in that rarefied air they would still be bringing home a ton of money. But that would be the top .01%. the top 1% would be more likely a 85% to be fair. I do not know - but that is still an awful lot of money.
Yeah I dont know the exact percent but the pols (dem or repub)ain't talkin about the right numbers.
No the dems are going in the right direction the repugs are trying to get to zero for the wealthy. 30% would be better then what they are paying now - but is no wheres near enough as to what they need to pay when you consider that they are getting a lot of what would have in the past have gone to the middle and lower class.
It's obscene!
Yes - it is obscene - if censors were to work in this area ( like for the entertainment industry obscene boundary's ) they would jail them all.
Or maybe there will be an insurance mandate version instead. lol
With this president, I'll believe it when I see it. He also said he was going to VETO the NDAA of 2012. He's back and forth on many things.
NDAA= This President could not veto a military budget passed with veto proof majorities. You mentioned how items (like NDAA) are added to must pass legislation.
So the solution is to fight against it early. The House dems attempted to repeal it last month. The House repubs defeated the repeal with a party line vote. You should be railing against them!
Last year the pres realizing the veto threat would not work, had the NDAA language changed to have the power firmly in the Executive branch and with the pres specifically. He then revoked the power for himself with an executive signing order.
That did nothing for future Pres so the people (ACLU, Journalist) brought a case. Thats the right approach. This president put forth a lackluster case against the NDAA challenge, they brought no witnesses. When the judge found against the NDAA, the pres has chosen not to challenge.
What more do you want? You don't want NDAA passed. Why don't you complain about the republicans who passed it.?
You can veto the NDAA... then congress can move on to step 2 to amend what the president doesn't like... or override the veto.
Saying the president "had to" is just apologetic Obama supporter lingo.
No one, and I give a ton of blame to the frauds in congress.... but NO ONE "had to" sign for indefinite detention provisions of American citizens.
You should read my posts railing against the House of Reps for passing the NDAA of 2013.... congress is bought and full of frauds. Don't let my criticism for Obama seem like I don't blame congress. Congress is responsible for the majority of the crap problems we see in this country.
The repubs in the house defeated the dem effort to repeal NDAA. Even your last post does not acknowledge that fact.
NY judge found against NDAA. Lets accept that reality and protest against the pols who created it, who defeated therepeal. Lets lend support to those pols against it.
All these bad right wing policies succeed because the progressives remain asleep. Only in the last 8 months have they started stirring with OWS. But if it is just an excuse to bang one politician over the head it becomes partisan.
I am against NDAA, But I support the President.
What dem effort? You mean barely anyone? If they wanted to defeat it THEY SHOULD HAVE VOTED NO instead of a large majority voting yes including about 100 democrats.
Like Dennis Kucinich, the Paul's and the other 90 guys. We need more people like them... yes indeed to that. I agree people should throw support behind those guys and hassle all those that voted yes.
It was just a handful of dems that voted against this repeal effort. You downplay the reality of this party line vote to cover up the republican responsibility!
You mentioned the repub co sponsor to cover for your repubs!!!
You mentioned the racist republican ron Paul to cover for repubs!!!
Probably 95% repubs voted against the repeal (co sponsor or not)
Probably 10% dems voted against the repeal. That IS meaningful. To pretend otherwise betrays a republican partisanship or willful ignorance.
The parties are vastly different. This illustrates it.
You republican!
Smith-Amash House amendment may 18th. GOP defeats the repeal of ndaa indef detention. Your racist Ron Paul supported the repeal but only a handful of repubs supported the repeal. Your right wing wacko Rand Paul might have supported the repeal but he is in the Senate.
We need no more people like the racist and right wing wacko Pauls. There type have created the right wing policies that the 1% benefit from.
you said as you shared a bill co-written by a republican that agrees with Ron Paul on a lot of issues
LOL
Justin Amash - Republican
The majority of the repubs - I'd guess 95%... are complete frauds. And I'd guess about 65% of democrats are phonies.
All three branches are bought out by the same industries.
It wont stop people from voting for them though. They refuse to do anything else. They flat out wont do it.
So with the question of NDAA, are they simply war mongering, power hungry maniacs? Or do they know what is coming?
The insurance mandate was the only way to get the few required repub. votes in favor of the health care reform bill. After the conservatives (repubs and blue dog dems) killed the public option.
But if you could recognize that we have gotten our foot in the door you could see the path towards the public option. Vt and Montana are already looking at public option and with time people will see the superior system it is.
That is how it will happen. It can happen faster of more people get involved, protest/agitate against right wing policies instead of laying back complaining that politicians are doing what they want.
For me it simply boils down to this:
Can I live with 4 more years of the way things are going now? If my answer is no, then I have to take the chance that anyone else is going to be even moderatly better. If my answer is yes, than I vote for the same old same old.
and let Mitt Romney become President? Surely, you must be kidding.
FINALLY a post by Bens papa I can agree with!!!!
DO NOT VOTE for OBAMA!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!
are you one of the traitors who signed grover's pledge
to put the financial condition of the 1% ahead
of the welbeing of the 99%
If you want to lose your freedom then vote for Obummer
slogans are a sign of a weak mind
Don't Vote For ObAma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who could argue with that?
IF I HAD A SON, HE'D LOOK LIKE BRIAN TERRY. Holder has to go
I love the title of this thread sooo much. Let's give it a bump!! ABO2012....ANYONE but Obama
but no vote for the devil ha ha ha
Don't vote for Obama if you want to repeal the ACA and knock millions off the new Medicaid rolls
Paul Ryan budget? I am not on the Forbes 400 list. Thx, but I will pass.
Don't vote for Obama if you want to give the 1% more tax breaks -
so they can unzip, pull it out, and trickle down on us
OPEN WIDE - so you can get MORE