PDA

View Full Version : Even the NYT's???



Sev
06-03-2012, 07:05 AM
Even their defense of Obama is lackluster.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Weak Economy Points to Obamas Constraints
</span>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/politics/obamas-hands-tied-on-weak-economy.html

WASHINGTON€” The bleak jobs report on Friday predictably had heads snapping toward the White House, looking to President Obama to do something. Yet his proposed remedies only underscore how much the president, just five months before he faces voters, is at the mercy of actors in Europe, China and Congress whose political interests often conflict with his own.

That day, Mr. Obama continued his weekly travels around the country, prodding Congressional Republicans to pass his €œto-do list€ of temporary tax cuts and spending initiatives to help create jobs. The Republicans only mock him, which leaves Mr. Obama free to blame his opponents and their presidential standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. But in doing so, he telegraphs a message of powerlessness that no leader likes to convey — least of all one who ran for office four years ago vowing to bridge Washingtons partisan gulf.

Developments overseas have not helped either. American officials have complained as Beijing began letting its currency devalue again, making its exports cheaper and those from the United States to China more costly. And administration officials, and Mr. Obama himself, have lobbied leaders in Europe for more forceful action to promote growth or at least contain the threat of financial contagion there.

In his weekly address on Saturday, recorded on Friday at a Honeywell International plant near Minneapolis, the president cited the global woes buffeting the economy. But he singled out Congress for rebuke.

€œWhile we cant fully control everything that happens in other parts of the world, there are plenty of things we can control here at home,€ Mr. Obama said. There are plenty of steps we can take right now to help create jobs and grow this economy.”

Without mentioning Republicans, Mr. Obama said Congress had not passed measures he had proposed to get jobless construction workers rebuilding roads, bridges and runways; to give small businesses a tax break for new hires; and to help states pay teachers, firefighters and police officers. The steady elimination of public sector jobs has offset increased hiring in the private sector for more than two years.

“So my message to Congress is: Get to work,€ he added.

Alan J. Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said, Frankly, I don€™t see what President Obama can do right now other than to forcefully present a detailed plan for action and challenge Congress to take it up.

But “short of a real crisis,€ as in 2008, Mr. Auerbach, an expert on fiscal policy, added, €œI doubt that there is anything he can do to spur meaningful legislation before the election.

Yet even in 2008, with the financial system near collapse, most Congressional Republicans rejected the rescue plan of a Republican president, George W. Bush. And now, despite their own record-low numbers in the polls, they have next to no incentive to help an embattled Democratic president lift the economy.

Continued economic anemia plays to Mr. Romney€™s call for new stewardship, and to Republicans demands to extend and deepen the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans rather than let them expire, as Mr. Obama and Democrats want. And they figure that if Mr. Romney succeeds, it will probably help them win close House and Senate races, while Mr. Obama’s re-election could do the opposite.

By emboldening Republicans, the report on Friday that the economy added only 69,000 jobs in May seemed to dash the hopes of some in the White House for a replay of 1996. That summer, as President Bill Clinton sought re-election with the economy improving, Republicans in Congress decided that their partys weak presidential nominee, Senator Bob Dole, was doomed. To Mr. Doles chagrin, they compromised with the Democratic president to notch some significant achievements and ensure their own survival.

Gene Sperling, the chief White House economic adviser, said, €œThere is no question that had Congress acted on the president€™s proposals nine months ago to prevent teacher layoffs, put construction workers back to work and cut small-business taxes, our job situation today would be notably stronger and unemployment would be lower.€ Analyses by macroeconomic firms and nonpartisan financial analysts agreed.

While Mr. Obama seeks to make Republicans the villains when it comes to the economy, he is also, more diplomatically, blaming Europe. In Minneapolis and Chicago on Friday, he cited the impact of the continent€™s travails on the American economy.

Citing the jobs report, Mr. Obama said, A lot of that is attributable to Europe and the cloud that€™s coming over from the Atlantic, and the whole world economy has been weakened by it.€

As lackluster as the American jobs data was, with unemployment inching up one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.2 percent, the news from Europe was far worse: the jobless rate in the euro zone hit 11 percent, the highest since tracking began in 1995. €œTheres really nothing the U.S. can do,€ said Charles Calomiris, professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama had a video conference call with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Franois Hollande of France and Prime Minister Mario Monti of Italy to discuss developments in Europe and plan for this month€™s G-20 summit meeting in Mexico. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner continued to trade calls with Germanys finance minister, Wolfgang Schuble. And late Friday, Mr. Obama€™s Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, Lael Brainard, returned from a week of consultations in Athens, Frankfurt, Madrid, Paris and Berlin.

Mr. Obama “emphasizes that what happens in Europe is of global concern,€ said Michael Froman, the White House adviser for international economic affairs. €œWe want to be of help, whether in providing ideas or lessons from our experience as they work through these issues.
For more than two years, Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner have prodded Europe, led by Germany, to do more to revive the regions weakest economies rather than push budget cuts, which have resulted in more losses of jobs and consumer spending power. Their results, however, have been limited at best.

Germany has shown some willingness to bend. Officials in Berlin have signaled that they could accept higher wages at home and inflation above the euro zones average. Last week, a finance ministry spokesman said Germany could be more flexible about the timing of budget cuts in Spain€” after Greece, the source of greatest anxiety now.

But Germans are deeply concerned that supporting big transfers of aid to troubled countries within the euro zone will create a precedent and the expectation in other countries that they, or their banks, will be bailed out whenever necessary. Germans also believe that issuing debt jointly with other European countries, known as euro bonds, which the United States supports, would be struck down as unconstitutional by their high court.

And they routinely dismiss any criticism from across the Atlantic as election-year politicking.

Germans do not think Americans have anything to offer at the moment in terms of helping us with the euro crisis, said Thomas Risse, professor of international politics at the Free University in Berlin. Everyone thinks it€™s just about Obama’s re-election here, which is wrong, but they think it.€

After the United States said this spring that it would not increase its contribution to the International Monetary Fund, its influence in Europe was blunted.

Even so, the I.M.F. appears to not be having the influence it usually does, said Franklin Allen, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania€™s Wharton School. It seems like Berlin is making all the decisions at the moment.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2012, 07:21 AM
No.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Soflasnapper
06-03-2012, 12:09 PM
I think you've misread their position.

As it is stated here, they offer complete support for all the 'excuses' (so-called) or as I'd say instead, reasons and external realities that Obama points to as worsening the situation, which are out of his control.

They list them, and agree that they are so, without any exception or pivot to blaming him on some other grounds.

So, they entirely agree with Obama and his campaign's positions on these things. True, they could have used more florid language, or railed about the obstructionists in the Congress, and they didn't choose to go that far. They didn't need to, when they explicitly mention GOP Congressional failure to act definitely made today worse than it could have been (citing independent analysts to support Gene Sperling's points), and that the GOP is incentivized to do just that-- make things worse for their electoral advantage.

Sev
06-03-2012, 06:11 PM
I dont know. All I see is poor Obama. The world is conspiring against him.

The key line in the article.

<span style="color: #000066">But in doing so, he telegraphs a message of powerlessness that no leader likes to convey least of all one who ran for office four years ago vowing to bridge Washingtons partisan gulf.</span>

Soflasnapper
06-04-2012, 10:13 AM
He has been unable to bridge or end the partisan divide, although not for lack of trying so much that it entirely exasperated his party and base.

Sure, it's tricky to now pivot from what was his chief aspirational goal, and call out the other side. I don't see much alternative, as doing the same things and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.

Gayle in MD
06-04-2012, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont know. All I see is poor Obama. The world is conspiring against him.

The key line in the article.

<span style="color: #000066">But in doing so, he telegraphs a message of powerlessness that no leader likes to convey least of all one who ran for office four years ago vowing to bridge Washingtons partisan gulf.</span> </div></div>

Do you really think that is a fair appraisal?

When, in our entire history, did the losing , during a time of national duress, vow to destroy a presidency, as their main goal?

This was the Repiglican's response to their own failed policies, a crashed economy, loss of global respect due to their Repiglican President, two failed wars, broken laws and treaties, and unprecedented spending, borrowing and growing government and debt, all with the mantra that deficits didn't matter!
Repiglicans have proven that their ONLY concern, is for money and power for themselves, and their wealthy contributors, not for the country at large.

G.

eg8r
06-04-2012, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has been unable to bridge or end the partisan divide, although not for lack of trying so much that it entirely exasperated his party and base.
</div></div>Haha, who are you talking about? Surely not Obama. He has done nothing but attack the Republicans. He basically told them to shut up he was in charge now. He attacked them in his press conferences left and right. Every time he speaks he is attacking.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-04-2012, 03:47 PM
Buddy, you are in an alternative universe.

In THIS one, Obama has called out the generic term 'CONGRESS' for blocking things, NEVER identifying the Republicans as the culprits for 3 years.

Once or twice he personalized it to Boehner or Cantor, but those were rare occasions. He didn't start with that, and it didn't continue as his practice. A couple of one-offs.

The shut up incident is wrongly characterized by you, and it's already been fully explained on this forum.

You think he attacks the Republicans in press conferences all the time? Easy to prove, if true. It is not true. I'd love to see you prove me wrong, so don't hold back out of sympathy or anything. Let's have it!

LWW
06-04-2012, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has been unable to bridge or end the partisan divide, although not for lack of trying so much that it entirely exasperated his party and base.

Sure, it's tricky to now pivot from what was his chief aspirational goal, and call out the other side. I don't see much alternative, as doing the same things and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. </div></div>

That was simply precious.

We are speaking of the same guy aren't we?

The guy who ordered his people to get in the face of te opposition and shout them down ... the guy who called for hand to hand combat in congress ... the guy who ordered his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight ... the guy who proclaimed he was ready to rule on day one ... the guy who told the out party to ride in the back seat?

That guy.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In THIS one, Obama has called out the generic term 'CONGRESS' for blocking things, NEVER identifying the Republicans as the culprits for 3 years.
</div></div>I am on earth, welcome to it. It is quite funny to see you read between the lines when it suits you then play dumb all the rest of the time.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In THIS one, Obama has called out the generic term 'CONGRESS' for blocking things, NEVER identifying the Republicans as the culprits for 3 years.
</div></div>I am on earth, welcome to it. It is quite funny to see you read between the lines when it suits you then play dumb all the rest of the time.

eg8r </div></div>

Again, you prove you are unable to post without lashing out with more personal insults.

G.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 08:51 AM
LOL, come on granny shut up and let the sensible adults speak.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, come on granny shut up and let the sensible adults speak.

eg8r </div></div>

You don't get to dictate to me, little man.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy who ordered his people to get in the face of te opposition and shout them down ... the guy who called for hand to hand combat in congress ... the guy who ordered his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight ... the guy who proclaimed he was ready to rule on day one ... the guy who told the out party to ride in the back seat?

That guy.</div></div>

I admit Obama was trying to win, and ginned up his supporters for that effort. All these remarks you mention were not public addresses to Congress or in a press conference to the nation. In those settings, and as president, Obama has been bi-partisan or non-partisan in his statements.

the guy who ordered his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight

June of '08, for that one. Not as president, but a candidate. And obviously, if there IS NO KNIFE FIGHT, or if THEY DID NOT BRING A KNIFE, there is no need for a gun, even should the phrase which only means be prepared and bring more than the opponents rhetorically and by effort be allegedly meant to be taken literally, which it clearly was not.

The guy who ordered his people to get in the face of te opposition and shout them down

You've misquoted it, of course. He referred to talking with your friends and neighbors, not shouting down anyone or 'the opposition,' and provided examples of the kind of 'in your face' arguments he was suggesting. That if they said Obama was going to raise their taxes, tell them no, he is going to lower them. If they said he's going to take away your guns, tell them no, he believes in the 2nd amendment. See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4) for yourself, as you seem to misremember how this went. That is, step up and make an argument, of the kinds he gives examples for. How horrible, in context? Not horrible at all. Also, note the date: September 2008.

the guy who called for hand to hand combat in congress

He predicted that would occur, didn't call for it.

"If they're (GOP) successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill," President Obama said. (source: Michael Baisden show)

You are quite a myth-maker. Or should I say rather, you believe the myths your side has crafted.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 12:12 PM
In every example that you tried to defend you never once showed us an example of a unifier. The funny part about the gun/knife part is that you are trying to act like it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Well we all know he is advocating the personal ownership of guns but then what did you think he meant when he said the people of Philly like to see a good brawl. Again we all know he did not mean they were going to actually fight in the literal sense but he certainly did not imply he was intending on unifying the sides either. He wanted a fight and he got one. Now all the lefty sissies are pissed off that Obama got what he wanted and he lost.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 12:56 PM
I wasn't challenged to provide examples of unifying, and so as if by miracle I suppose, I didn't provide any. Amazing.

How do you think Obama passed anything, with the 60 vote requirement to bring things to a vote?

He got the couple of REPUBLICANS he needed to get the cloture number to cross the aisle and vote for allowing the vote, precisely because he compromised with their demands. Whether it was Olympia Snowe, or Gail Collins, or Arlen Spector, or this or that one.

He allowed MONTHS of dickering in the Senate with Republican Senator Grassley and another 4 or 5, to try to achieve a compromise, which made the whole thing drag out to its eventual near failure, given the health problems and later death of EMK.

The House accepted some 165 amendments from the GOP for the bills they passed in that body. This is far from the dictatorial approach that is said they used, AND THEY HAD THE POWER TO ABSOLUTELY PASS ANYTHING with no compromises at all, given their majority control of things.

Those were a few of his unifying bipartisan actions. For his unifying speech rhetoric, please review his State of the Union addresses' transcripts. Clue: depending upon the media you consume, you may NEVER have heard of anything unifying he nonetheless has said.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 01:09 PM
The President bent over backwards, so much so, that Repiglicans basically diluted the AHCA, to the point that it does not provide everything, the public option, for example, which those of us from the left, were hoping to have included, but the President did manage to get almost all of the important provisions so important to those Americans who fall ill, like the fact that the corrupt insurance agencies, can no longer call babies born with diseases, and special needs, can no longer be denied coverage, on the former grounds of having pre-existing conditions. Young college students, can get coverage through their early to mid twenties, on their parents health coverage, people can no longer be dropped, right when they need their insurance coverage the most, just to name a few of his and the Democratic Party's amazing accomplishments, i spite of Repiglican obstructionism, and ridiculous lies.

I recall several meetings, and the outrageous statements made about the AHCA by the Repiglicans.

One was in Annapolis, where the president basically blew all of the Repiglicans away, along with all of their lies about the AHCA, just standing and answering to the absurd Repiglican lies, no teleprompter, BTW.

The Second was held at the White House, when the Repiglicans sat around the long conference table, this after months upon mnths of others on The Hill, trying to carve out agreements, and every single one of them around the table parroted the party mantra.... start over! This, after the Repigs had complained for over a damn year about how many pages long the bill was!


LMAO, Repiglicans can't read two thousand pages, in a whole year!

Pretty funny, since the righties on here can't read either! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

BWA HA HA HA!


G.

LWW
06-05-2012, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In every example that you tried to defend you never once showed us an example of a unifier. The funny part about the gun/knife part is that you are trying to act like it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Well we all know he is advocating the personal ownership of guns but then what did you think he meant when he said the people of Philly like to see a good brawl. Again we all know he did not mean they were going to actually fight in the literal sense but he certainly did not imply he was intending on unifying the sides either. He wanted a fight and he got one. Now all the lefty sissies are pissed off that Obama got what he wanted and he lost.

eg8r </div></div>

The doublethink is strong in him.

LWW
06-05-2012, 02:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wasn't challenged to provide examples of unifying, and so as if by miracle I suppose, I didn't provide any. Amazing.

How do you think Obama passed anything, with the 60 vote requirement to bring things to a vote?

</div></div>

He had 60 moonbat crazy leftists marching in collectivist unison ... as did the nutty 25%.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 02:17 PM
Yep, and on the stimulus composition as well, which made it far less effective than possible, and less effective than it needed to be.

Notice also he did not unilaterally raise the debt ceiling himself, although he had the Constitutional argument of necessity and that the COTUS states the national debt shall be honored and not questioned. Yes, in an amendment, but all amendments duly passed by the Congress and ratified are part of that document with equal force.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, and on the stimulus composition as well, which made it far less effective than possible, and less effective than it needed to be.


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> Absolutely! Then they follow up all of their obstruction with.... "Where are the jobs" what total BS!

Unbelievable GALL!

G.</span> </span>

Notice also he did not unilaterally raise the debt ceiling himself, although he had the Constitutional argument of necessity and that the COTUS states the national debt shall be honored and not questioned. Yes, in an amendment, but all amendments duly passed by the Congress and ratified are part of that document with equal force. </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000"> Not heavy handed in his presidential conduct, at all!

G.</span>

LWW
06-06-2012, 04:43 AM
They love thugocracy.