General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama is practically handing 2014 to the Republicans
Point 1. The ill-advised push for the AWB and restrict magazine sizes.
Is there anyone on this side of reality who thought that shit would have ever flown? Never mind getting past a GOP filibuster. There are a whole hell of a lot of Red/Purple state Dems who would never vote for anything like that. (Unless they wanted to commit career suicide.) In the end, both get dropped from gun control legislation, and the Repubs get red meat to use in 2014.
Point 2. Chained CPI.
The mid-term election voter base tend to skew older. Ah, fuck that. The shitstorm is only just beginning. And once it's at full strength, Obama will find himself totally alone on this. Who the hell thought this was a bright idea? The only thing this'll accomplish is to push voters straight into the GOP's pockets. This makes the 2nd Amendment issues mere icing on the cake now.
Three months after inauguration, Obama seems hellbent on handing the 2014 mid-term elections to the GOP, even with them on the brink of civil war.
gateley
(62,683 posts)If they go against Obama on this issue, they'll come out stronger.
I don't even think it'll make it to a vote, frankly.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Republicans aren't going to side with the president on this, and they can't actually say "don't touch SS"! If they do either one their teabagger base will go ballistic on them and they would facer a primary challenger.
And most of all I also agree with you that it most likely won't come to a vote. If it does then you are correct, the democrats can look stronger and the republicans will be forced to put their votes on record, which could be trouble for them.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And their attempts to spin didn't work in 2012, either.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)edhopper
(33,216 posts)that they were giving the GOP a chance to sound more progressive than the President?
What a foolish political blunder!
Logical
(22,457 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)It's about privatizing social security. The President has surrounded himself with the money and thus the "advice" of Wall Street bankers from the beginning (As Bill Clinton did before him). These people don't give a rip about politics as long as they get their way. They care a whole lot about sucking more money out of the country. They have sucked all the money out of pensions. They have sucked all the money out of housing. But Social Security is the mother lode. Wall Street's wet dream. Actually having the government take money out of every paycheck in America to be poured directly into the Wall Street trough. Of course there is no way it could ever be done by a Republican. There's no way it can be done if it is strong and has the confidence of the American people. Now they have a democrat in the White House, so it's their time to start the process of wrecking social security. Have a "tax holiday" to cut into the SS balance sheet. Appoint a totally unnecessary and unqualified "commission" to spread fear and undermine the program. Cut benefits. Run it into the ditch. Then ultimately leave the politicians no choice but to "save" social security by turning it over to Wall Street. Bad politics? Hardly. If it means more republicans win in 2014, all the better. More votes to privatize it even faster.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)Obama is a tool of Wall Street. He has a job to accomplish and that's the only thing he's interested in. The Democratic Party has been had, and the only way the party can save itself is to speak out loudly against this shit.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Holy shit.
Somebody put a chain on the asylum door.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Point 1. The country had shifted on the gun issue. And if the Bloomberg group and other gun safety organizations really do match the NRA in contributions to Democrats, then they'll do just fine vis-a-vis the gun issue.
I'm in Colorado and no doubt about it, Sandy Hook has changed how average folks think about guns and gun violence. Furthermore, the Second Amendment nuts have really cast themselves as nuts, in this state anyway, the pro-gun, soft on criminals NRA-types have truly marginalized themselves.
Point 2. Yup. Dumb move by Pres. Obama. It is now up to each Democratic candidate to make it clear that Social Security is off limits and that even if Obama doesn't, Democrats are fore square for preserving Social Security.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)I may agree with point 2: but point one is BS. Most people do nto want theiur kids to be shot, and they do nto care if Dixie wants to keep sellling guns to whoever they want.
CalFresh
(99 posts)would the rich want to change anything.
Wall street at all time high.
Rents at all time high.
Corporate profits all time high.
Labor costs at all time low.
Millions of cheep labor going to be citizens.
Government paying for health care.
Bank making record profits.
Big oil pumping in the good old USA.
Gun makers working 24/7.
Government cuts.
The Clinton and Obama years have been great of the rich.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)Wall Street was already sickeningly wealthy before Reagan was elected and the country started on this accelerated downhill slide. They received tax cut after tax cut, yet they still weren't satisfied. They gutted regulations, started wars, and gambled on derivatives, yet they still wanted more tax cuts. The rich and powerful never have enough wealth and power and don't give up either unless they're forced to do so. It's time to do that.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)no amount is ever enough for this guy. the more he makes the more he wants as if he might lose it all one day if he doesnt make it fast and squirrel it away.. he is frantic about it.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)FDR intended SS to be a stopgap support program for widows and children. As crafted, it was not intended to cover men or increase with inflation.