Obama on why he wouldn't veto FAA bill: GOP would have blamed me for flight delays
Source: Politico
President Obama says he wouldn't veto the FAA bill eliminating furloughs because it fixed one of the short-term impacts from sequester, and if he had, Republicans would have blamed him for the ensuing flight delays.
He said the only way forward is a larger budget deal that replaces all of the across-the-board sequester cuts with a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases.
"The only way to do that is to engage with me and come up with a broader deal," he said. "Frankly, I dont think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix... It just means there would be pain now, which they would blame on me."
The president said he is fairly confident that Washington can get beyond some of its dysfunction to address some items on his agenda, such as immigration reform. But on a larger budget deal, he said he's not sure Republicans will make the compromises he is asking for on taxes.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/04/obama-on-why-he-didnt-veto-faa-bill-gop-would-have-162941.html
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Reagan had no problem firing PATCO! He didn't give a shit what anyone thought and he's revered for it, for having the strength of his convictions even if said convictions were the slippery slope that led to all that is wrong with this nation today.
He fired PATCO and there were no crashes and, of course, no complaints from repukes. What's a little undermining of unions from the affable actor...
This was the very issue for BHO to get ballsy on. Hey, what's inconvenience compared to starvation (Meals on Wheels?). He could at least point out the hypocrisy and demand something in return for yet another concession. He could have some BALLS, for a change!
He is so predictable and so weak.
byeya
(2,842 posts)Simply spot on
Carolina
(6,960 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Obama is GREAT at Stand Up and Late Night Talk.
I think he missed his calling.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Not a total failure
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)good grief.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)The Tee Vee made sure that St. Ronnie never got the blame for anything.
That is how he became known as the "Teflon"® President.
For some reason they never seem to show such deference to Democratic Presidents.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)they'd see that there IS no bully pulpit unless you're a Republican. There IS no 4th Estate unless you're a Republican. And there ARE no journalists WHEN you're a Republican - just corporate secretaries.
Hillary Clinton said it right the first time . . . there IS a rightwing conspiracy in this country, and they will take down anyone and everyone who even breathes a word of equality for the vulnerable among us, and who dare go against the Corporate Powers that have infected this country and are governing it by proxy of a spineless Democratic and dumbass but loud Republican Congress.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Let's compromise all our values so that we can get re-elected and continue to compromise all our values? Is that our new motto?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)He is sending us a message; he understands that the vast majority of American media are nothing but softer versions of Faux News Channel. He wants those who still believe we have a viable 4th Estate to know that we don't.
Purity tests fail in the real world. It only depresses voter turnout for our side, as we've seen in 2010 when Republican found a way to get back in power and immediately began to gerrymander districts in order to STAY in power.
So our new motto should read: Vote STRAIGHT Democratic ticket. Vote on time and in each and every election. Learn from 2010 and boot the Republicans out of power.
I thought that was clear to you.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And who said anything about a purity test?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)As for purity test:
This is the same bullshit I saw infesting DU and other sites before the 2010 elections. I saw and heard it on the Ed Schultz show. I saw it on DU, HP, DKos, FireDogLake, Yahoo, and FB. Enough Leftists were furious that the president didn't push for single-payer, didn't close Gitmo, didn't immediately end the Iraq War, didn't end the Afghanistan war, didn't push for a larger Stimulus, and together with too many Blue Dogs in the House, just plain didn't do enough. Result? Their cries that they refused to compromise their values were loud enough to persuade Independents and Liberals to stay home in the 2010 elections. The Republicans cleaned up in the gubernatorial races, the state legislature races, and the U.S. House races across the nation and they immediately set out to secure a Republican House through gerrymandering districts to the point that although the Democrats got nearly 1.5 million more votes in the House in last election, it couldn't give Nancy Pelosi the gavel and we're stuck with this obstructionist House.
How about now? Is it clear to you now?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Thank you for the vituperative lecture on how it is my fault that Republicans won the 2010 elections.
Despite your propaganda above, the facts show that seniors did not come out to vote for Dems, largely because they had been convinced that "Obamacare" cut Medicare. And young people also didn't come out to vote, largely because young people don't vote in mid-term elections. That reality is head and shoulders away from your unhappy "leftists" caused people not to vote meme, which is bullshit.
I never said people shouldn't vote. I said the President shouldn't cave. And by your logic, he shouldn't have. Had he stood firm on a public option, the unhappy leftists would have not prevented others from voting, and we'd all be living in happy land under a Democratic regime, nary a Tea Partier in sight.
Well, thanks for you hate-filled spew. You have convinced me to stand even more firmly behind my conviction that we should not compromise all of our values in order to get re-elected so that we can continue to compromise all of our values. Do you know what a Senate made up of sell-outs like Max Baucus would look like? It would look exactly like a Republican-controlled Senate. The only thing that keeps him in line ever is the existence of Dems on his left. If they didn't exist, he'd be Jeff Flake. But keep advocating for selling out. It's persuasive. Really.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You can't be trying to suggest that all that wailing from the Left - given ample time by corporate media right alongside the TeaBaggers - didn't influence the debate and how people thought about the HCR that ultimately affected the 2010 elections. I'm sorry, but I ain't that gullible.
As for your assertion that the president hadn't stood firm on the public option, you are so phenomenally WRONG. In fact, had you stepped out of your pink Purist bubble for a few moments, you'd know that the president HAS put language in ObamaCare that allows the government to set up their own health care companies - the PUBLIC OPTION - that will open in October and what would compete directly with ProfitCare. It was in the New York Times {buried on page A23, of course}, and I've posted about it many times here. I'm sorry you missed it. But fact remains, he knew he had to do it this way in order to get it through SCOTUS.
And as for blaming me for your staunch stand to remain a Purist, I'm sorry, but that too is bullshit. You had already made up your mind before your first post here, so don't give me that tripe that I'd convinced you of anything.
That you would consider compromise as selling out, well, that's what TeaBaggers think and say, too. A democracy only works when two parties compromise to get things done. Only in a dictatorship is compromise a dirty word. I'm very sad to see you agree with the Baggers. I don't believe you even knew you had that in common with them. How does that make you feel now?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And I love that you are on DU calling other people "the left." What are you then? If not left, then why are you here?
And as to your "pink purist bubble" whatever the fuck that is, get over yourself. There is no "public option." The president was against it, said he was against it, and remained against it. There was or is no secret plan. If you are referring to state-sponsored "co-ops" those are not the public option and were never intended to be. There are not going to be any magical government owned health care companies popping up in October. Check back with me when there aren't.
SCOTUS? You're kidding, right? In your world, did John Kerry also have a secret plan for victory? Is that why he conceded Ohio before all the votes were counted and failed to spend the final $10 million in his campaign funds?
Compromise is not selling out. The president does not compromise. He sells out. Compromise takes two or more parties, each giving up some of what they want. The President repeatedly gives in without getting anything in return, e.g., signing the FAA bill, proposing unilaterally to cut Social Security, stating his opposition to the public option. What color is the sky in your world?
How do I feel now? I feel great now. The more you post, the more I thank god that I am not as uninformed and hateful as you.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)of unbelievable Left-fringe tripe.
How do I know that the public option is on its way? By gauging what the enemy thinks about it. From the link I provided but what you didn't bother to read {cuz it might embarrass you}:
I am NOT part of the Left. I'm a Progressive Democrat who actually cares about seeing this country move forward, unlike the wide-eyed Left fringe who only care about "keeping their values" come hell or high-water. The unrealistic view the Left-fringe have of our government is the reason Nader helped the GOP defeat Gore in 2000. And you still haven't learned from that colossal mistake.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)name-calling, foul language, quoting the right-wing, jumping to wild conclusions, and denigrating the left.
It's not possible for you to embarrass me. You do embarrass yourself though.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)it's because no one's had the temerity to give you a reality check. I'm happy to have obliged.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And yes, there are plenty other people like you here on DU. If only you were one of a kind.
PS That means I wasn't dazzled in case you are still confused.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Thanks for putting up with those posts and fighting the good fight.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The ones who stayed home in 2010 are the first time 2008 voters who thought they were voting for a revolution and instead got deference and appeasement to the party they had resoundingly rejected.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!
Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I don't understand this person or his or her angry, vicious centrism.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)it starts to make a LOT more sense.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)miss treatments, while letting seniors starve since they won't get their meals on wheels, etc. etc. etc.
If Obama had vetoed he could have explained all of this and it could have become a great discussion and put us in a good place to force the Cons' hand.
But of course he didn't veto it. Because then the Cons would pick on him. Oh boo-hoo.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)then what?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I agree that we should not cut funds to air traffic controllers, but you can't single them out and think every thing's grand now. There are grave repercussions to setting a precedent like this. All this precedent does is signal that the priveliged can demand what they want changed and it will happen. The elderly, poor and sick can just rot on and deal with the sequester.
And btw... crashes happen. So if one happens to occur during the sequester you can't point fingers. Not until the stats went way up, not that I'm advocating that.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)just trying to help you understand why its not an easy decision either way.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002273931#post23
23. He is not going to win re-election.
Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:27 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
It's fascinating that the narrative is now that happy days are here again, with an epically cooked unemployment number. Just one number and are picking out drapes.
He is not going to win becuase all those people managed to find a job are all working part-time. The rest still have no jobs and have been vaporized off the books. They do vote you know.
This is the reason he will not be re-elected. A monumental drop in the standard of living that has effected more people than you think.
Also we are not even factoring in the:
Coming collapse of the Euro.
Six buck gas.
Sorry to burst the bubble....
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)Pres. Obama is conceding to the sequester regimen.
Get used to it folks ... the sequester is here to stay.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)and then when they put through this vote, it made it all the more obvious...pretty effed up. I'm pissed.
I'm sure the GOP is holding their fat bellies while they laugh.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)...For some of us non-rich folk, anyway.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Legislation can be passed to give the government flexibility. This bill took money from from airport construction to pay for the air traffic controllers. Future legislation can be passed to move money from one part of government to another.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Sequestration was designed to make EVERYBODY feel the pain.
NOW, we have set a "precedent" that lets the RICH pass legislation
that EXEMPTS the RICH from having to feel their share of the Sequestration Pain.
Yes. The Sequestration is Here to STAY,
but only those parts that cause PAIN for the Working Class & the Poor.
The RICH won't experience even a moment of inconvenience.
Congress WILL respond to the whistles like the pack of beaten dogs that they are,
and our President WILL sign it.
NOTHING has "changed".
[font size=4]Paulson with Co-Conspirators[/font]
24601
(3,955 posts)us well-informed that we have sufficient funds to avoid any furloughs. What they don't know is whether they will be allowed to not furlough even though it's not necessary across the board. [No, I'm not going to ID them for possible retaliation.] What does the President fear - the word getting out that he ordered furloughs anyway, even if there was enough in the payroll line item to avoid it. Yep, some organizations, like several military services, don't have the finds - but that's not the case everywhere. But what does the President REALLY fear - testimony under oath along the lines of, "Yes, senator, that's right - we didn't have to furlough our employees; however, the President ordered us to do it anyway. And yes, had our people been at work, we would have known about and been able to prevent the terrorist attack. Senator, that's not really my call - you'd have ask the President if it would have been worth saving Chicago, or LA, or NYC from a dirty bomb attack."
Exactly.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Turns out they hate taxes more than they love death and destruction.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... exempting 'defense' will be coming along soon enough.
As Syria and/or Iran hots-up, the calls will begin with urgency that the military simply must not be subject to the sequester.
Would Pres. Obama want to be blamed for 'weakening' America?
If he can't take being blamed for flight delays, how in the world is going to deal with being blamed for not supporting our armed forces in a time of peril?????
Maven
(10,533 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)he will capitulate on that one too
factsarenotfair
(910 posts)I don't like it.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)O.K. Mr.President.....Great marching orders... Well sit back for the next 3 1/2 years and wait for the next guy..
Scuba
(53,475 posts)WCGreen
(45,558 posts)Hillary, perhaps, but that's pretty much it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)but the Koch brothers will never allow that to become a reality. Electable? Ok, probably not. Ballsy? Definitely.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)the critical moment was in 2011 when he made this terrible deal, one of many he has made with the Worst Congress Ever.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)To call defense spending the elephant in the living room is something of an understatement.
It doesn't fit in the living room anymore, it has burst through the walls into the kitchen and the bathroom and the floor is starting to go.
It is bigger than all the other defense budgets in the world, combined.
Defense needs to be cut. The sequester, with all its faults, is the only way it could possibly have been cut, given the GOP lock on the House.
Defense will need to be cut more, of course, to restore the cuts in domestic spending.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)He is afraid of the GOP....strategy as it may be sense they lost two elections now...but are still a fearful force in his mind.
But I guess that is what good cop says when bad cop dictates the terms.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)fixes a problem that was irritating the heck out of people.
frylock
(34,825 posts)another brilliant strategy by the chess master.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)zeeland
(247 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)We are in the Dawning of the Age of Obama
(reference to 1960s saying/song).
zeeland
(247 posts)Time for that to change.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)FFS, grow a pair already. Use your bloody bully pulpit!! ARGH!!!
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The nation would laugh, giggle, feel good and approve.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Some leader he turned out to be.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Let me explain it to you in small words, Mr. Eleven Dimensional Chess:
1) You veto the bill.
2) You hold a press conference after the veto explaining that you have no intention of sparing congress the suffering of their own making. You see no reason to make a special exception for the people who caused this train wreck, especially when the rest of America gets no such relief. If the GOP members don't like it, they can talk to the Medicare cancer patients who are not getting their cancer treatments and see how much sympathy they get.
3) Dare them to show how freaking hypocritical they are by overriding the veto. Promise them that if they do, that you will make sure that the American people are reminded of their arrogance at every opportunity.
4) Have a violin player on hand.
Jeebus, is that so hard?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Over 1 million Americans fly every day:
http://www.quora.com/How-many-people-fly-domestically-in-the-United-States-each-day
That's a lot of pissed off voters.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)How about just doing the right thing because it is the correct thing to do. Enough with the gazillion dimensional chess and triangulation/appeasement crap.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Had the President vetoed the bill.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)to share their complaints we people suffering REAL harm from these cuts, not inconvenience.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)Its one excuse after another for 4 years now.
I doubt it matters if the GOP blamed you Mr. President (they'll blame you no matter what), its not like you're running again in 2016.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)There is a real danger of Republicans gaining control of the Senate.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Does our party understand why an unpopular bunch like the GOP Congress members still win?
Its because their voters see them taking ideological stands (even on their craziest ideas) instead of caving in to the other side.
Thats what our side needs to start doing.
Anything less leads to a surrender and a constant move right.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)It didn't work. An unpopular President can be a millstone around the neck of a candidate. This can create an environment where Democratic candidates get 5%-10% less of the vote than they normally would have. This makes it much harder for a Democrat to win in a state or district where there are near equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
leftyohiolib This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...by what the Republicans might say,
then we have completely surrendered.
CENTRISM!!!... because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!
I can remember when DEMOCRATS fought for the values we shared,
and weren't frightened that the Republicans would say bad things.
FUCK a BUNCH of Republicans and what they might say!
They are going to say Bad Shit no matter WHAT Obama does,
so WHY just give the store away for NOTHING?
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
msongs
(67,343 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,081 posts)It boggles the mind how he got his priorities twisted and his re-election mojo wasted.
frylock
(34,825 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Oh Wait.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)at this point I am not sure he's deserving of the honorific
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Sounds like he's given up. He's basically saying he's afraid of them and will do whatever they want if they threaten him.
This disaster gets worse every week. I was thinking he was going to switch parties, instead he just plain quit. It is probably time to start a "please resign" movement and hope Biden can salvage something from this presidency. What a debacle
treestar
(82,383 posts)And did not come away with that impression. This is just latching onto a phrase to make it come out a certain way.
And he's right. He can't win, there are always those who are going to blame him for everything.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Seriously, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, cancer treatments ...these are acceptable to withhold? No, and he needs to draw the line. The sequester is an orchestrated sham. He knows it and we know it ,so being held hostage by a sham makes him what?
If you can't win you either hide or go down swinging! Really, we can't afford to sit around , being held hostage by these fools any longer. The president is a smart man, he's always landed on his feet. Maybe he needs to eat a little less, sleep in the cold car and imagine how he would feel if he or someone he loved had medical treatment withheld all because of a hoax played on the people. I don't think he would be rolling over on any of this in that case!
treestar
(82,383 posts)They won't agree to any of that and there is no physical boxing match that takes place. It is not a fight - if it were, we'd still be in the dark ages.
And if he vetoed the ATC the same people would be posting over and over about how horrible it was to do that when everyday people fly too and have to visit their sick relatives and they won't be safe, and the 1% will always be safe in their Lear jets, blah, blah, blah.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Traveling to see a sick relative or denying life saving treatment? Hands down for me it's treatment and food!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)most of the outraged folks didn't hear any of it.
This is just the outrage du jour.
And it will be something else tomorrow.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it is wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
peace13
(11,076 posts)Truly, we are tapped out, out here. Election donations, donations to crisis after crisis, and calls to treasonous senators and representatives, State officials stealing us blind! We are trying out here and understand the seeming futility in all of this but for goodness sake...you sit on the highest podium here and do not need to worry about reelection any more! DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE SAKE OF DOING THE RIGHT THING ALREADY!
If the press is going to eat you, they will. Get over it. Really, the airplanes still fly but seniors and children are going hungry while cancer patients go without treatment, all of which have irreversible, bad outcomes! That is indefensible in my book!
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Just get rolled again. I mean, gods forbid you stand up to the assholes that have been wrong about every single motherfucking thing for the past fifty years. Gods forbid you demand that most vulnerable get what they need back in return for helping out the business class. He's just a big wuss that they can kick around with impunity.
Either that or he's complicit in their nefarious plans.
Or both.
What a disappointment.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)How in the hell would vetoing a bill that would end the recent sequester driven flight delays accomplish anything other than making you feel better?
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Give the Republicans the FAA if they give you Meals on Wheels or cancer treatments. You know, something that's actually important.
You don't just give them what they want because you're afraid of being blamed for something. That's cowardly.
It's also stupid.
Sorry.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The flight delays were affecting ordinary citizens. Ending them is a plus. And the Republicans have already proven they aren't going to negotiate anything of worth. Doing what he can, within the limits of his power, to help ordinary people and pushing to get a new Congress is really the only strategy worth pursuing right now. Anyone that doesn't see that needs to get out more.
And I'm sick of this "coward" crap. Barack Obama is not a fucking coward. He puts himself out there, under more risk of assassination than probably any President before him. He calls for things that makes the crazies even crazier. Its easy for you to sit there on your little keyboard and call him a coward, but when push comes to shove, I doubt you could hold up his jock.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I'm sick of all the defending of the indefensible. He plays the game like an amateur, that's just the fact.
The flight delays were hurting the business class not ordinary people. Just how many of the 99% do you think get on planes every day? Most people have never even been on a plane.
If the baggers aren't going to give you something in return you go to the People and explain why you're doing what you're doing. "I'm not going to relieve the inconvenience for the business class without relieving the literal life or death situations for chemo patients or starving shut ins." It's not that fucking hard. Make them look like the pieces of shit they are, don't capitulate to them.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its not indefensible. It needs no defense. He did the right thing here.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)But let's not pretend that if it were only the "ordinary" people suffering that anything would have been done on this front. The business class led this charge and they got what they wanted as usual.
He did the wrong thing. He should have stood for the less fortunate but he didn't.
Two landslide victories and the GOP still owns him.
Quite frankly the game was blown in the first two years.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You people just make up shit to be pissed off over.
I'm glad none of you are President, you wouldn't last one morning.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Right, stopping people from having to wait in line for a little while is equal to feeding a starving shut in. Now all those poor people can get to Hawaii faster. What a hero! I'm not making up anything. He should have got something in exchange for giving something. That's the way the game is supposed to work, unless you're this President.
And by funding the FAA, he took away money that was for construction and airport repair. Killing or delaying thousands of jobs instead of the few that were furloughed. It's a net loss.
I'm glad you're not the President, you'd give away the store and get absolutely nothing for it. Actually, it wouldn't be much different.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this I guess.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I don't think this is a poverty issue at all. OF COURSE poverty based programs facing cuts should get relief immediately. That's a totally different problem. You are the one trying to twist the subject and make it about that. However, it definitely is a middle class issue.
He didn't really need to get something in exchange, because I imagine he, like all the other SANE fucking people would've wanted to see the god damn agency responsible for safe air travel receive the ability to function at its best capacity. This "giving away the store" crap is just pious bullshit on your part and it has no merit whatsoever. Its, like I said, you making up reasons to piss your pants.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Online sales, parts for manufacturing, and a shitload of commerce which keeps the economy functioning, is flying.
It's not just people on airplanes.
MikeW
(602 posts)was give the reinforce the Republican talking point that you can divide the Federal workforce .. those that are essential and those non-essential.
I can tell you there's a bunch of us "non-essential" that are pretty PO'd about this decision.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Oh no, they're gonna be mean to me!!
I give up, I just fucking give up, it's no longer possible to defend this man as much as I like him.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)He said that it wouldn't have pushed the Republicans to come back with a real fix, they would've just fell back on blaming him instead of doing anything about it, so he might as well allow the flight delays to end.
This thread is misleading and you people are more than happy to fall right into the bullshit.
1KansasDem
(251 posts)If he vetoed the bill he would have taken the blame for delays from the flying public AND his veto would have been overridden with a lot of democratic votes.
Got backed into a corner.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)are unfamiliar with Politico's M.O.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Who cares if they blame you? They blame you for everything anyway! Go on the teevee and tell the American public that you aren't gonna do this piecemeal. That they figure out how to fix the whole sequester or nothing, because you're not gonna let all the cuts end up on the backs of the most vulnerable. Your most important tool is the bully pulpit. USE IT!!!
(Yes, I realize I'm making the dubious assumption that this isn't all going precisely the way it was intended and DC wanted it to play out.)
PSPS
(13,576 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Meanwhile, regular folks affected by the flight delays will get a reprieve.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Meanwhile, regular folks affected by the flight delays will get a reprieve.
Having just returned from a trip to the US, I can assure you that the delays were
in no way any worse this time than on any prior occasion when I've had the misfortune
of travelling through an American airport (and yes, that is in cattle class, not business
or whatever).
From my perspective, this whole thread is above a cave-in to the mere potential for
criticism which simply doesn't (and didn't) exist. Yes, there were some delays. Yes, it's
still a pain in the arse to get through US Immigration, Customs & Fatherland Security.
No, it wasn't sufficiently different to every other occasion for me even to consider
"blaming" anyone (much less the President) for "the effect of the sequester".
It appears that some people really like to make a mountain out of a molehill if said
mountain would allow their beloved idol to hide behind it and cower away from the
possibility of criticism from the party that is supposed to be his opposition
rather than part of his own team ...
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)As far as flight delays go, they were literally doubled on some days. In just one day, the FAA reported 1200 additional flight delays due to the sequester, on top of the typical flight delays caused by weather, mechanical problems, etc.
On top of that, you were looking at 47,000 regular ass workers facing furloughs who now won't be.
This is just another case of some of a bunch of amateur political critics looking for something, anything, to be pissed off about.
hatrack
(59,564 posts)nt
NoodleyAppendage
(4,619 posts)Generally when presented with evidence of continued Presidential cowardice here at DU there's always at least one respondent who thinks that the repeated capitulation to Republican/conservative complaints is some sort of "master plan" by Obama. They always cite some sort of 3-D chess metaphor for these supposedly "purposeful" politically cowardly incidents.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)And start listening to the people who voted for him
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Please, Mr. President, do something for the voters who put you back in place. Or in other words, dance with the one that brought you.
I don't understand why the President could not use this as a teaching moment-let people know what the sequester is about (I can assure you not that many folks outside of here even KNOW what it is about-unless you are one about to lose a vital service because of it). A veto would give him a really good chance to explain the issue.
This move just looked shallow and political, and yes, I did write and criticize any of my representation in Congress who voted to make sure the FAA and the Congress people were well served.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Ordinary, middle class folks were affected by the flight delays. Vetoing it would have proved nothing and would have solved nothing. And had he have done so, the Republicans wouldn't have come back with a real solution, they would have, like he said, just blamed him for it and let the pain continue.
People in this thread need to get a fucking clue and think about how things like this affect regular people instead of going into automatic keyboard warrior mode.
MikeW
(602 posts)the only thing Obama did was give more support to the Republican talking point that once again just like in 1996 we can divide the Federal workforce .. those that are essential and those non-essential.
I can tell you there's a bunch of us "non-essential" that are pretty PO'd about this decision.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)As a matter of fact, you are the first person I've heard mention such a "point".
Aside from that, everyone knows some services are more essential than others. Don't take that the wrong way. I want everyone who got furloughed to get their income back ASAP. Just because something isn't "essential" doesn't mean its any less valuable.
You apparently dont work for the government, are too young to know what happened in 96 or are some
fatcat fed manager.
I dont find it a stretch at all and neither do most of the OTHER FEDS I work with.
I lived through this BS once already in 1996!!!
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)While this was certainly far from being the most pressing issue of the sequester, it was ridiculous to allow these absurd delays at airports just for the sake of cutting spending in the first place. Fact is, rich and well-to-do people are not the only ones that fly, even if they were the ones pushing for this the most. Not to mention that less air traffic controllers means greater chance of accidents. And if you want to blame someone for not bargaining this with the GOP, blame Harry Reid for pushing this as a stand-alone bill. The sad truth is there's not much concern for the poor on either side.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Yes. We see that, and those of us on the left are quite angry about it. Many of us feel betrayed by this President and the people running the Democratic Party.
At least you're honest about it. That I appreciate.
-Laelth
caraher
(6,278 posts)If the Senate didn't approve it, it never would have reached his desk. Plenty of Democrats could have put the brakes on this before it hit the President's desk.
durablend
(7,455 posts)But at least folks won't be inconvenienced getting to Disney World and by gosh that's what's important!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If that was truly what the President said (since this comes from Politico, who knows?), he needs to come up with a better excuse.
24601
(3,955 posts)would really concern the President tll that much. I'd bet his real concern is that they have internal polling showing that the American People would have blamed him since many agencies can get through the sequester without furloughs - and that he'd pay the price at the mid-term elections.