Do you find Obama or Boehner more persuasive?
Posted at 5:00 AM on July 26, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(97 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Science/Technology
President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner addressed the nation last night to give their different views of the debt-ceiling impasse. Today's Question: Do you find Obama or Boehner more persuasive?
Comments (97)
Mr. Jefferson, since you believe Boehner is correct, why didn' t I see any republicans volunteer to cut their salary, benefit, number of staffers. Afterall, they want more cuts in spending. They should lead the pack with ACTION not EMPTY talk. Did you forget that most of the debt was generated during the republican administration? They were given a surplus. Bush administration didn't just spend those money, they went into debt with the wars which profits Mr. VP Channey's friends.
Mr. Jefferson, I hope you are one of Mr. Channey's friends. Otherwise, you are screwed by the republicans and Boehner's party will screw you more down the line. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The TEA PARTY and republicans want one on your money unless you are one of them. In that case, you are not an average American.
I hope Mr. President will hold his ground. But being a politican, he probably won't. There is no such thing as principle in politics. I am actually hoping for a default so that we all can see how bad it can hurt the country because many freshmen congressmen, tea party nuts think the default does not mean anything. It will be a hard lessons. Since these students' cannot see the rationales, they should have a hands-on experience. When the country default its loan, the first group of people who won't get paid are those who work in the congress from the house, senate, to their staffers; hold back all the social security of their parents. May be hands-on experience is the only way to help them understand finance and accounting.
//You were persuaded when you were presented with some sense-making facts. Good for you! I wish the ideological zealots in Congress could be so open-minded.
Mr.Cynic
No.
"If you have facts that make sense, there is no need for persuasion."
Lucy, you're not actually disagreeing with me. You are apparently equating persuasion with salesmanship. As I'm using the word, legitimate persuasion does not necessarily mean irrational appeals to fear, hate, greed, etc., although such tactics do too often persuade people. Ideally, people should be persuaded by evidence and reason. You wrote, "I have changed my mind on a few things-based on sense-making." That's exactly what I'm talking about. You were persuaded when you were presented with some sense-making facts. Good for you! I wish the ideological zealots in Congress could be so open-minded.
//"My problem is with the question of why do we need to be persuaded?"
Well, the alternative to being persuaded is to accept dogma without question. If you've never been persuaded to change your mind based on sound reasoning, that tells me you're willfully ignorant. Consequently, if you're a politician who proudly claims never to have "flip-flopped," you have zero chance of getting my vote.
Mr. Cynic-
I don't buy into dogma. Period. If you have facts that make sense, there is no need for persuasion.
Yes, I have changed my mind on a few things-based on sense-making. This is where persuasion falls into place because 'making sense' is confused with 'making cents'. When the facts make sense there is no need for persuasion. The need to persuade is rooted in the need to 'make cents' and not, make sense.
If you are performing well, what is the need for persuasion. The proof is in the action.
It's fine if you need to be persuaded and frankly at this point I feel that persuasion will evolve in to begging and pleaing-and that is my 2 cents.
"My problem is with the question of why do we need to be persuaded?"
Well, the alternative to being persuaded is to accept dogma without question. If you've never been persuaded to change your mind based on sound reasoning, that tells me you're willfully ignorant. Consequently, if you're a politician who proudly claims never to have "flip-flopped," you have zero chance of getting my vote.
What's more, is those crazy genes.
Think about it. You think you are voting for the best candidate who you have studied and learned some things about their intentions.
The real controllers are the Big Businesses including their 'blood'-born-pathogens or long lineage of insanity and hand-me-down-lessons of greed.
My problem is with the question of why do we need to be persuaded? or feel that we were persuaded. We should be satisfied with his performance if he is doing his job then where is the need to persuade?
as far as business and campaign donations go,
even the Great Obama has his hands tied. It comes with the position.
Wise would be a supplementary factor of this particular PhD's name. : )
President Obama speaks the truth but the GOP isn't listening to him or the American people. The majority of us want a balanced approach with cuts and revenue. They want the tax loopholes for big oil and gas closed. The GOP will be history in the next election if they don't learn to compromise.
"The person who pointed me in the direction of this article has a PhD in Sociology and therefore I would expect some validity in the article."
You'd think. However, the ideological lie factories (such are think-tanks) hire lots of PhDs, who produce the donors' desired results in return for fat paychecks and secure jobs. Getting a PhD requires lots of smarts. Smart is a very good thing (would that there were more smarts in the world!), but smart is not the same as wise.
I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that big business has way too much power over our elected leaders.
//Lucy, I'm not convinced that web site is a reliable source.
Of course, Mr Cynic. The person who pointed me in the direction of this article has a PhD in Sociology and therefore I would expect some validity in the article.
Something to watch for in the future, (if you want concrete proof), is how much is donated and from whom to the Obama campaign (and others). Then watch which party wins and then watch where corporate favors land.
No party is safe from the wealthiest people in the world. It is the corporations-big money-who are the real decision makers.
We need to change this.
Lucy, I'm not convinced that web site is a reliable source. However, if I understand the article that your link pointed to, one inference one might draw from it is that the right wing is lying when they insist Obama is a socialist.
@ Mr. Cynic-
//"), we're well on the way to ruin.
We sure are!!!
here's a mouthful of persuasion:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28617.htm
Both parties are trying to gain an advantage through this "game of chicken", but if I have to choose between sides, I would choose Obama over the Republicans who can't seem to get beyond "the party of no"
"When I hear the word persuasive I think of manipulative and deceiving."
How sad, that the language would decay in this way! When I learned that word, it connoted evidence, logic, and reason. Persuasion was an honorable thing, in contrast with inveigling or hoodwinking. Alas for America, if people confuse being persuaded with being deceived! If changing one's mind in response to clear and convincing evidence is seen as a moral failure (i.e., "flip-flopping"), we're well on the way to ruin.
@ john 1047,1149 and 206-
exactly
when I hear the word persuasive I think of manipulative and deceiving. we have been deceived for a long time about who the true leaders of this country really are and that is corporations. The corporations are interested in more power and more control of not only our own country but of the entire planet.
Time to stop competing and see each other not as Minnesotans, Americans or any other entity that needs to hold it's identity as superior but as humans. one race.
I find neither of them - the parties are so polarized our country is in deep trouble if we can't get these problem children to act in a cooperative matter
The president has the fair and balanced plan.
Anita and Jamie,
The number of posts on one side or another of questions asked on these pages is hardly representative of popular opinion in general. For one thing, it's a self-selected sample of people who are probably more well-informed than average. For another, it's quite likely that several folks posting here are doing so under multiple names. For still another, some of the posts are so far out there, on one side or the other, that one has to wonder if the writer really believes those things or is just trying to get a rise out of people. For yet another, I've seen quite a few posts that I strongly suspect are by people of one ideology posting obviously ridiculous comments in support of an opposing ideology in hopes of discrediting the other side. MPR is right to pick and choose a variety of thoughtful answers, and even to highlight some extreme ones that illustrate the range of opinions.
That said, the "false equivalency" in news reporting is a huge problem. From what I've heard, a solid majority of Americans favor solving this impasse with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, but you wouldn't know that from listening to corporate media. So I have to wonder when Chip Cravaack, for instance, says he's hearing mostly a no-new-taxes message from his constituents, is he lying, or are the moderates and liberals just not contacting him because they believe it would be a waste of time and their opinions would fall on deaf ears, or both?
// I hope that MPR reports on the fact that the vast majority of these posts agree that Obama is more persuasive. When you pick out a couple opinions from each side, you mislead your listeners into thinking that your listeners are more divided than they actually are. // ~ Anita
I'm with Anita. MPR usually does the latter, though. They're into the False Equivalency mode of reporting the news, just like most of the news media, and reporting these daily question posts as though there's no clear listener/reader preference is part of that mode.
Obama. Not a doubt. All Boehner does is trash Obama and Democrats and spew typical meaningless Republican talking points/lies.
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are probably going to cave in in the end, because they have to. Just like Mark Dayton had to do. They have to be the grown-ups in the midst of lying, bullying children.
For Jefferson to make the statement "majority of Americans" is obviously flat out false. If you review the comments, of the 75 shown at this point, just 5 appear to agree with agree with Boehner and the house position.
Obama. No contest. The President and his party have disappointed me many times, but I feel that the Republican Party has become a haven for the heartless, the greedy and the proudly ignorant, and nothing that Rep. Boehner said last night led me to change this opinion.
The Republicans are correct and there should be massive cuts in government in exchange for a debt limit increase. The majority of Americans don't even want the debt limit increased; the fact that the Republicans are even offering a deal to increase the debt limit through spending cuts is enough of a compromise.
Obama, completely. Boehner was not truthful or persuasive in his remarks. More important, President Obama has an approach which is rational and appropriate to the situation.
Obama was much more persuasive. He laid out the issues, and effectively explained some of the more complex issues. He also clearly revealed the cynical strategy of the Republicans by which they are simply holding the county hostage by using this debt ceiling vote to get the extreme cuts that they demand.
He made a moral case that the sacrifice that is required to get our country out of debt should be shared by all, including billionaires and companies getting tax breaks on their corporate jets.
I hope that MPR reports on the fact that the vast majority of these posts agree that Obama is more persuasive. When you pick out a couple opinions from each side, you mislead your listeners into thinking that your listeners are more divided than they actually are.
Obama is much more credible. House Republicans are acting like spoiled brats rather than grownups.
Obama. I just keep wondering when the Republican party is going to take ownership for getting us into an unwinnable, unpaid-for war, for tax cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, and for turning a surplus into a huge deficit. Obama inherited a huge mess in the midst of an economic downturn and has done a great deal to get us turned around. It seems it's ok, and even patriotic, to spend money we don't have if it's Republicans doing it, and Armageddon when they don't have the presidency. It's time the rich take some responsibility for the financial mess we're in -- the fat cats that in large part caused the meltdown are now getting richer than ever and sitting pretty, instead of in jail where they belong. This is while the middle class pays and pays and pays and the poor get poorer.
Both. To balance the federal budget we absolutely need to cut spending and increase revenue.
Instead we will likely extend tax cuts and maintain spending.
"I am not interested in who is/was more "persuasive", only in who makes more sense and is on the right track for the WHOLE country."
Kirk, that actually sounds like a pretty good definition of persuasive to me.
Obama. We need a balanced approach, and he offered a reasonable one that tackles the budget but spreads the pain. (Actually, I think it puts too much of the pain on the backs of the poor and constrains the recovery of the economy, but he offered it in the spirit of compromise.) Boehner didn't mention compromise once. But his hands are tied by the extremists in his party. The GOP in becoming the Grand Obstructionist Party and has lost its ability to contribute constructively to our country's future and thus its legitimacy.
I am not interested in who is/was more "persuasive", only in who makes more sense and is on the right track for the WHOLE country. Obama wins hands down in this arena.
The president continues to present general options and is asking the congress to find a detailed plan that fits. Boehner and the congress keep throwing back specific details that have been previously rejected. The president seems to be more constructively presenting ideas and options and the GOP-Tea party core seem to be stuck on idea #1 - essentially no new taxes - or appparently no revision of the tax code to close pork-barrel loop-holes. I like the president slightly better - because of flexibility and open-ness. I think Boehner got leadership of angry cats. Very hard to herd. The only way I see this stalemate breaking in the US House is for the centrist GOP and centrist Democrats to link up and bypass the Tea Party bloc.
It was Nancy Reagan, not Ronbo, who said "Just say No." Aimed at kids being pressured to use drugs....
Obama.
Boehner's speech was all hyperbole and spin. Obama explained clearly what the situation is and a reasonable course of action.
The fact that the Republican party, controlled by the extreme right fringe, gets so much popular support is appalling to me. As stated elsewhere here, the Republican intent is not to govern, but to defeat Obama. And, how can the Republicans call themselves the representatives of the people, when they make pledges that eliminate any possibility of compromise!?
How can anyone take today's Republican rhetoric seriously? In the name of protecting the American people from "job-killing taxes," they're threatening to crash the whole economy through government inaction. Where do they get such ridiculous ideas? Could it be that, in their efforts to sabotage Obama's presidency by denying him even the smallest political victory, they've lost track of what's really important? Could it be that their pandering to ideological purists has led them to confuse reasonableness with weakness? Ya think?
@ Jim G
I think the word is stupid. It is insane of our country to continue spending this way. What the HELL are we still doing in Afghanistan, Iraqi, and bombing Libya?
We can not continue this global conquest.
We can not continue supporting aggression to innocent people like Israel has been doing since 1948.
Obama!
I find the President more persuasive. We need a word to describe the Republican Leader's plan which does nothing but kick the debate on the deficit to February of 2012.
And for that,
the word "hell" works quite well.
This crowd is obviously sucked into the mass media BS. We are all pawns in this, Obama or Boehner they are paid off by the same Wallstreet banksters that created this mess.This is nothing but a show. It means nothing.
Most definitely the President is more persuasive. He has thoughtfully considered and clearly articulated the issues at stake, and has met and exceeded the goal of bipartisan compromise. Since Mr. Obama took office, the Republicans have been found mired in their do- nothing, negative ideology whenever there is a desperate need to seek creative and flexible solutions to any important problem facing this country. Their unwillingness to expend mental effort or political capital in the service of the poor and middle class of this country is reflected by their obstinacy and in their poorly-considered promises to constituencies like Mr. Norquist and the Tea Party.
Obama by a long shot. It seems Boehner can't persuade his own caucus on to adopt his plan.
President Obama is much more compelling in his argument in that he is looking at the larger picture. Because Sen. McConnell has stated more that once his primary agenda is to defeat the President, not solve problems, I can only assume that the whole GOP plan has that as the desired outcome.
It appears to me that the GOP is playing Russian Rolette with the American economy. What is the role of Government? Is it to improve the lives of all, or is it to protect the greedy interests of the super wealthy? Yes we need fiscal policy to reduce the deficit, but if the GOP actually looked at history, it would be obvious that the stuff they are proposing, having been tried before, will cause much more harm than good. And those super wealthy, after the $16 trillion Bush era bail-out, where are those jobs? They are sitting on that tax payer money and not lending it out or helping create any jobs.
Boehner faulted the Govt. for the recession, and to an extent he is right. The Bush administration did in the economy when he charged to the 2 wars on the Chinese credit card. The unregulated greed that allowed wall street and the mortgage companies to run amuck during the Bush era really is the other cause of the recession.
Now that the great American democratic experiment throuPresident Obama is much more compelling in his argument in that he is looking at the larger picture. Because Sen. McConnell has stated more that once his primary agenda is to defeat the President, not solve problems, I can only assume that the whole GOP plan has that as the desired outcome.
It appears to me that the GOP is playing Russian Rolette with the American economy. What is the role of Government? Is it to improve the lives of all, or is it to protect the greedy interests of the super wealthy? Yes we need fiscal policy to reduce the deficit, but if the GOP actually looked at history, it would be obvious that the stuff they are proposing, having been tried before, will cause much more harm than good. And those super wealthy, after the $16 trillion Bush era bail-out, where are those jobs? They are sitting on that tax payer money and not lending it out or helping create any jobs.
Now that the great American democratic experiment through compromise has become a dirty word, the 82 extremists new GOP house members are doing exactly what was not supposed to happen, the small minority is holding the rest of us hostage. Shame on them! We need to redouble our efforts as citizens to demand responsible leadership, and not allow inexperienced ideologues to destroy our economy.gh compromise has become a dirty word, the 82 extremists new GOP house members are doing exactly what was not supposed to happen, the small minority is holding the rest of us hostage. Shame on them! We need to redouble our efforts as citizens to demand responsible leadership, and not allow unexperieinced ideologues to destroy our economy.
Obama.
President Obama all the way. Have to raise taxes on the wealthiest; they have 99% of the money anyway.
There are advantages and disadvantages to any solution. They just have to compromise.The financial situation will keep getting worse until incentives are given for job growth in the public sector.Where else can the country get money? Spending taxpayers' money to hire people won't help in the long run. Those of us over 50 who haven't been able to find any type of work are going to need a lot of help if something isn't done. Some companies won't hire people in good health if they are over 50 because of health insurance companies and the way they charge.The steady loss of jobs, especially after the 9-11 event has been an important factor in the economy. The corruption in the mortgage crisis was another factor and the factors that caused that was caused by both political parties. We need to get back on track with jobs.
President Obama.
The republican "plan" is a sham designed to do nothing but attempt to hurt Obama...and by extention, all Americans.
Boehner is a disgrace and Cantor acts like a child.
Obama. Boehner sounded 17-- transparently defensive and passive-aggressive.
Obama.
Obama has always been a very organized, informed, effective speaker. He was right on again last night.
I have been distrustful of Republican leadership for some time, but during the MN shutdown, Arne Carlson brought me up to speed by reporting on the Grover Norquist pledge. That really scares me.
Erik/Paul - right on target!:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
This has been the sole purpose of "everything Republican" since the last round of elections.
GaryF, is it too difficult for you to recall (or admit) that what you so derisively refer to as "Obamacare" was in truth originally a Republican approach, conceived to counter the proposals of Hilary Clinton?
President Obama has my full faith and support, and - as badly as this may affect our country - I pray that he will stand his ground on behalf of our nation and let the Republicans bring down our national fiscal reputation, for the sake of their (myopically misguided) political longevity.
Perhaps then, those so disaffected with the "status quo" - our national politicos' legendary inability to "get the job done" - will pause for a little more consideration of whom they would so short-sightedly elect in their collective "any-change-despite-the consequence" desperation, which led us to our current, catastrophic "tempest-in-a-tea-party"...
Obama. He's met the Republicans on their own ground, but they are so ideologically rigid they demand complete ideological purity in their actions and disdain compromise. I hope Obama stands his ground.
Obama
http://tinyurl.com/3rrt6sd
http://tinyurl.com/3c6mklh
Every time the Plutocrats need to pitch in (the Top 2 percent) or is just discussed Boner leaves and in so doing says he is ignoring 98% of the US.
Debt is not the creation of Obama, but the conservatives as the first graph I link here shows.
And it was not Clinton's, which actually was set to be paid off. Which the second graph shows.
http://tinyurl.com/3dnqm3v
And with the above link we know the Rich actually pay less in taxes right now then the rest of America. The link goes to Forbes. Some like businesses like GE get all their taxes back and a additional REFUND. Thus the POOR are paying to the rich their blood money...
Hording, and thus not returning money into the economy is destroying it.
Under Truman presidency they paid near 55-45 % of income tax.
Right now that top 2% own 99% of all assets in the world. I repeat the world. Vastly different then it was even 20 years ago.
Out Middle class is at 40-50 K a year. It was 70K a year in the 70's.... We have gone backward when we should have been going forward by natural rules of inflation.....
Middle class should have been nearer 100K a year by now, not 40-50K and dropping...
I have to support Obama this time. I am trying to reach the republican representatives from my state by phone to voice my opinion, as opposed to email, and will continue trying until I reach them. Others must be tying up the lines, or else the phones are off the hook! Whether it does any good or not, at least it's obvious support is out there for Obama's bipartisan plan and results will show up eventually, in the elections next fall.
Obama won with the presentation of facts and showed how unreasonable the right-wing is in this Congress. Boehner failed in his speech... he came across as arrogant and appeared as a bad actor who didn't read his script ahead of time - with his horrible body language and word annunciation.
Rep. Boehner repeated that families must live within their budgets, so the government must as well.
But families do not continue to live on credit cards when they have the option of increasing their income. He has gotten more and more hard-line in order to appease the far right in his party. Meanwhile, Obama talked about history, compromise and the good of the country. Obama was the clear winner. We all need to tell our representatives, and the legislative leaders, that they need to listen to the independent voters in the center.
I think Obama's got the right idea with a balanced approach. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice as long as the sacrifice is shared fairly among the rich and the poor, and I think this view is shared by most Americans. The national debt is clearly a huge problem that has to be dealt with and it won't happen without compromise from both sides. Democrats need to consider proposals for reforming Medicare and Social Security and Republicans need to compromise on tax reform, let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire and close loopholes that benefit corporations that are clearly not creating any jobs, but are still making huge profits. Obama was willing to put Medicare and Social Security reform on the table, but Boehner wasn't willing to accept even a little bit of sacrifice from wealthy Americans or corporations. We witnessed nearly a mirror of this debate in our own state government budget showdown and in the end Governor Dayton ended up capitulating in order to put an end to it. My hope is that Obama and the Democrats in the Senate will stick to their guns and not let our economy be held as ransom by the intransigent, reckless, and irresponsible Republicans who are being guided by extremists.
Obama was definitely more persuasive. Obama explained his reasonings and showed that he has the country's interested at heart. Boehner showed himself to be short-sighted and self-absorbed.
I gotta go with the Pres on this one.
There is not even any question on this-Obama has done everything he can to try and work with the GOP, willing to surender more than I would like. But he is ready to do this to protect the country and its people. Boehner and his party have refused to budge on their no-new-taxes commitment, and they are willing to sell out the country to get their way. It is a pathetic display of leadership, and putting the party before the country.
Obama was more persuasive, we've got to come together on what's really important and of mutual benefit. He's yet to encourage the legalization of Cannabis though. What the heck is the problem with the short shortsightedness of these politicians?
Good idea Eric ... then next year we put increases taxes on the top 5% up for a vote, and so on and so on until tax increase for 100% of the people ... spending is the problem that needs a solution first! Then tackle the tax code. The other way around is unsustainable.
Let's put increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% up to a popular vote. My hunch is that only 2% of people will vote against that.
Can't say. I watched the Twins game. Now THAT was persuasive! From the news clips same old same old from both ... speeches without substance … this is Obama’s core strength.
Can't say. I watched the Twins game. Now THAT was persuasive! From the news clips same old same old from both ... speeches without substance … this is Obama’s core strength.
The pres came out and basically said - Look, there are two ways to do this - My way and The Wrong way.
Trying to present himself as the "balanced" approach here is unbelievable to me. There is nothing balanced about anything he's ever proposed. Boehner, et al need to stand firm. Obama and company need to back down.
Cuts need to happen now - today - our children can afford nothing less.
Neither was particularly persuasive. The President spent more time talking about the 'debate' than about the consequences of failing to fix the problem - a major shortcoming of his address. Boehner also failed to make a persuasive case for why his version is better. For the informed, nobody's mind was changed by the speeches. For the uninformed, neither explained enough about what they're proposing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more-americans-unhappy-with-obama-on-economy-jobs/2011/07/25/gIQABJ9sZI_story.html?hpid=z3
OBAMA!! Why should the Richest American receive Welfare?
The US defaulted on our debt in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending.
I say default now. Bring spending under control. I agree with John to stop the wars.
Neither one is on the right path. If government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing, though I have my doubts.
We need to end these wars, end aid to Israel, support Palestinian peace through recognizing them in the UN vote in September. We need to demand peace through negotiation not military action
Does Obama even have a plan?
Watch the CNN highlight from last night.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59883.html
I'm coming to think more and more that Obama wants this crisis to happen. He's falling in the polls and needs someone to play his "blame game" on.
Boehner has been a broken record since he assumed the speakership. When their hero, Ronald Reagan, said, "Just say no",
he was refering to drugs, not everything the other side says!
EVEN HARRY REID KNOWS THAT TAX INCREASES WON'T PASS THE SENATE.
Does Obama want to test this?
Without question, Obama is more persuasive on this. By default, if nothing else-- Boehner's position is incomprehensible.
It's not giving the President a blank check for Congress to raise the debt ceiling to pay for financial obligations that Congress itself committed the nation to pay.
The president has bent over backwards to make a deal and Boehner can't make one, because he really hasn't got the votes for much of anything. I can appreciate Boehner's position here, but this "blank check" business is nonsense.
Maybe a default is what American truly needs at this point? The housing market has tanked, the stimulus packages haven't worked, the government is divided.
Maybe we as a nation need to realize that you can't borrow money you don't have and pay on credit. Maybe it should be very hard to get a loan or mortgage, and our credit rating should be lowered.
Just pointing out the obvious...at some point we will run out of money to pay for a government that is too big and getting bigger every year.
As unbelievable as it is for me to say this, I found Obama's pitch more persuasive.
Obama has shown an ability to compromise, the republicans have been acting like children. Do the republicans even recognize that they only control one chamber of congress and the democrats control the senate and the presidency? The congress was designed not to let political fads rule congress by having the more stable senate. Harry Reid is a weak leader but he still leads the senate and should be passing compromise bills through senate showing how ridiculously childlike the house republicans are being.
Obama talked about the issues. Boehner pointed fingers at Obama. The republicans are stuck in cement. They need to get off of there ideological high horse and learn to compromise. They're acting like children throwing tantrums. They're willing to throw most Americans under the bus in order to make sure that Obama is a 1 term president. Obama wins, hands down.
Boehner's close colleague Mitch McConnell offered the following comment a while back:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
This has been echoed by many of his fellow Republican legislators since the election. The president, on the other hand, has never made a similar comment regarding Mr. Boehner or Mr. McConnell or any other Republican in congress to my knowledge. So, when Mr. Boehner accuses the president of being more concerned about his reelection than the nation's well-being, I have to wonder who is really worried about the president's reelection.
I blame Boehner and his cohort. They are fixed on their goal of preventing Obama from governing and they are willing to let the nation burn to get there.
Missed by most commentators last night was Obama's plea for citizens to contact their representatives. Reports are that Congressional servers crashed. My hunch is that we will soon see evidence that the President used the bully pulpit effectively. Of course, he does have the advantage of telling the truth, as well, and that helps. Boehner's assertion that Obama was playing politics caused this mess was laugh out loud pants on fire.
Adopt the Obama plan that is on the table NOW!!!
The only reason that taxes for the wealthier are in discussion is that Bush gave away too much. The spending has risen to out of control mainly due to Bush's overaction to 911. The wealthy republican base has financially benefited from the wars via their shareholder interest in the war supply chain.
Obama's spending has not hit the books yet.
Obama is fair and intelligent to a fault.
Looking at these comments, I'm discouraged that as a country conscensus is not even close.
The fundamentalist teapublican party have become nothing but VULTURES: there is no reasonable argument, but dogmas and nationalistic fervor while toying with the middle class' progress. ANYTHING is dispe㎱able to protect hoarding of profits of those NOT hir㏌g & destrѹ㏌g this country : GOP is the enemy of America! Playing with people's lives and the economy the have proven to be the most reckless and belligerent fraction of America! They have contributed nothing for the recovery in site of years if proven disastrous policies! Time to stop them!
The fundamentalist teapublican party have become nothing but VULTURES: there is no reasonable argument, but dogmas and nationalistic fervor while toying with the middle class' progress. ANYTHING is dispe㎱able to protect hoarding of profits of those NOT hir㏌g & destrѹ㏌g this country : GOP is the enemy of America! Playing with people's lives and the economy the have proven to be the most reckless and belligerent fraction of America! They have contributed nothing for the recovery in site of years if proven disastrous policies! Time to stop them!
I support the President because he is the most reasonable. I truly believe Mr. Obama could propose almost anything and the republicans would reject it. I hope the President doesn't capitulate too much but I also don't want to see the US humiliated by a default. How come no one seems to be thinking about the good of the country only the good of the party?
Obama's schitck is getting old.
The scare the old people and class warfare battle is getting tiresome.
After the who debacle with the lack of transparency and bullying during the who Obamacare bill makes it awfully tough to take him seriously any more.
The whole Obamacare mess really tainted me on his credibility.
Obama wins the argument, hands down. The Republican ideas make no sense. as Arne Carlson a very good budget balancing former governor from Minnesota said, *you dont borrow from the future". However, that's exactly what we're now doing in Minnesota., and of course, the Federal government has been doing that for years--The only sensible plan is to cut spending and raise taxes, and eliminate tax loopholes
.
Why is Social Security being attacked now.? Isnt Medicare much more of a problem? Is Medicare able to negioate down drug prices? And are Medicare Advantage plans still around, at a cost to all Medicare recipients of 15% more, even if we dont participate in those plans?
Boehner is pushing the Republican Economic policy which is to see the recession continue so that Obama will look bad next year.
Obama has always promoted a reasonable approach that generally is in line with what economists are promoting. While Boehner is just a water boy for the Tea Party.
The one bright spot in all of this is the Gang of Six who seem to be bringing a sign of compromise and sanity to the situation.
I believe President Obama not the "Hell No Republicans", Obama plan is more fair and will lead to a balance budget later.
Obama, as do most economists and co-called debt commissions.Which is using a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue in solving the long-term structural problem.
Although personally, I believe Obama will cave just like Dayton. Neither of which knows how to negotiate and or frame their case effectively.
Tax revenues are at the lowest percentage of GDP than they have been in over 60 years. Every bipartisan committee that has evaluated our deficit problem supports the approach that the President is advocating. Republicans are most definitely playing politics to satisfy their base versus contributing to a viable solution. Everyone who has not already ought to contact their congressman/woman to make their voice heard on this issue.
The Republicans are bent on destroying Obama....at OUR expense!!!!
I was hoping for better from Speaker Boehner; he has been showing tentative signs of being marginally reasonable, of late. However, Word from the Mountaintop has has obviously brought him back to his REAL job. We all know what that is, I won't waste space spelling it out.
But I was disappointed in his speech; it was primarily an attack on the Democrats and the President, with minimal attention to the problem at hand or his proposals for resolution....
I'm getting SO discouraged....
President Obama was more persuasive in delivering his analysis of the country's financial problems. During the Clinton administration the economy was running very smoothly and the country was generating a surplus. When George W. Bush was campaigning for president, one of his main talking points was that this surplus was not the government's money but rather the people's money and he wanted to give the money back to the people so the Bush tax cuts were created. Now that the country is running a large deficit, the same logic should be used in reverse but Speaker Boehner and his republican colleagues have taken an approach that tax increases are not an option. The President's approach of modest tax increases and spending cuts seems so much more reasonable.
Obama. This debt ceiling being raised is not a surprise, it's not like it's a new concept and we need to do it (the money is already spent). We also funded two wars with special payments all from borrowed money; at least Obama has put the wars into his budgeting.
Sure would be nice to see the free loading democrats paying their fair share
I pay a higher tax rate than someone making hundreds of thousands more dollars than me. How is that fair?
I support President Obama. We can't fix the problem without raising taxes. A balanced approach seems more sensible.
Speaker Boehner was more persuasive to me. President Obama was only repeating his old talking point..."Bush is to blame, tax the rich and the big bad corporations" He is obviously more concerned with his reflection than the nations financial problem. Speaker Boehner's plan was clear and was laid out for all the see. We need fiscal responsibility and financial discipline.
Any plan that provides a "promise" of future cuts by democrats is a lie. Won't happen as the far left need to keep funding their free loading voters. The republicans are correct not to trust obama or democrats unless they have a contractual obligation to cut spending as the democrats will never cut anything.
Personally am not against eliminating various deductions, mortgage deduction etc but believe republicans need specific cuts not just promises of future cuts.
Divided government is great assuming it creates a compromise. Sure would be nice to see the free loading democrats paying their fair share as they utilize resources which I am funding.
While I am disappointed that President Obama has compromised so much during his tenure, I believe he is keeping his eye on the issue much better than Boehner or the Republicans, who want to push their archconservative agenda on the nation regardless of what it does in the long term to the majority of Americans.When they aren't even able to concede any changes in taxes or deductions for the very rich or stop talking about cuts to eveyone else, the Republicans clearly have an agenda that benefits only the top 5 or 10 percent and throws the rest of us to the wolves.
And while I am not anywhere close to being a Miss Manners fan, I am truly offended by the recent speeches, especially by Boehner, calling the president "irresponsible" and worse when defining their own agendas.Bipartisanship is clearly dead to them, and their world is way too black and white.
| July 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock