Saving the Progressives from Obama

[JustRalph]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/post_1307_b_786612.html

This article has been out a few days now. It is stirring up some comments on some sites. It's a little long, but worth the read. It is aimed at Progressive/Dems via the Huffingtonpost

quote :

"I cannot recall a president who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as chief executive. Nor do his actions since the election inspire confidence that he will be reborn as a fighter."

Apparently this guy never heard of Jimmy Carter.

Take off your Goggles Liberals, and realize what you elected. A fraud.

[PaceAdvantage]

I really would love to know what they expected.

Those of us whom he failed to excite as a candidate have had his number all along.

[boxcar]

I really would love to know what they expected.

Those of us whom he failed to excite as a candidate have had his number all along.

That's the great question of the moment. What in the world did they ever see in him? They really must have thought he was the messiah and that he had the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in his back pocket. He has provided such a imperceptible bang in return for such grand delusions.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

I really would love to know what they expected.

Those of us whom he failed to excite as a candidate have had his number all along.

I watched during the whole campaign and shook my head. And I am still shaking it.

You don't hire a person with no executive experience to be the "Chief Executive" and expect him to act like anything other than an impostor

I read somewhere that an "insider" in the White House has said that Obama has hired all his buddies from academia to run the country and they are finding out that all of their theories they have been teaching for 30 years are bullshit. They don't work in the real world.

I also read that in an informal poll in the White House Rahm could not find one person on the staff that had actually run a business. He got into a huge argument with Axelrod about wanting to hire some actual businessmen as advisors. They didn't do it because the Academics inside the White House would be offended ? :bang: :bang:

Warren Buffett was considered an informal advisor. Give me a break.

[NJ Stinks]

I see those violins need some fine tuning. :rolleyes: Here's a short list of things I expected and he delivered. As taken from an article in The Guardian newspaper in the UK from August 1010:
____________________________________

Obama's election was part of a broader reaction against GOP priorities. In Congress, Democrats made sweeping gains, and in statehouse races across the country, voters also turned towards Democrats. For the first time in a generation, the party actually controlled government by big enough margins to enact sweeping reforms.

Had they failed to take advantage of this moment, one could easily understand a voter reaction, a backlash based around shattered hopes and a sense of having been sold a bill of goods. But, despite the voices of criticism from some of the activist base, generally the Democrats have not failed. To the contrary, on most of the signature themes the Democrats ran on and won on, they have produced results, despite a concerted "just say no" effort by Congressional Republicans convinced that their best electoral strategy was to prevent any and all legislation supported by the administration from passing.

Healthcare reform passed; financial regulations were enacted; large stimulus packages stopped the economy's freefall and at least temporarily mitigated the worst effects of many state governments' fiscal implosion; student loans were reformed, making it easier for low-income people to attain a college education; and at least some progress has been made on moving the country toward a less carbon-intensive economy. By most measures, the last two years have seen more major legislative changes than any two-year period since the 1930s. (The GOP base instinctually knows this, but that base doesn't carry enough electoral clout to explain why the Democrats are in trouble in this election season.)

The link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/04/barack-obama-ratings-achievements
_______________________________

[JustRalph]

Healthcare reform passed; financial regulations were enacted; large stimulus packages stopped the economy's freefall and at least temporarily mitigated the worst effects of many state governments' fiscal implosion; student loans were reformed, making it easier for low-income people to attain a college education; and at least some progress has been made on moving the country toward a less carbon-intensive economy. By most measures, the last two years have seen more major legislative changes than any two-year period since the 1930s.

All against the will of the American People. Which is why they got their asses handed to them a few weeks ago.

Yep, he got a ton of stuff done. All of it bad

[Tom]

A lot of people are spreading the lie that the election was a mandate for bi-partisanship. I disagree - it was a mandate to crush democrats and their stupid spending.

[JustRalph]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45627.html

Nationalizing the elections has consequences and as I stated above, Nancy and Harry joining together to shove the Obama agenda down the throat of the American people is causing a sea change.

[NJ Stinks]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45627.html

Nationalizing the elections has consequences and as I stated above, Nancy and Harry joining together to shove the Obama agenda down the throat of the American people is causing a sea change.

I read the article, Ralph. And I can say before I read it that I never considered the South even remotely Democratic in the last 40 years.

The South can do what it has to do. Honestly, I don't care what they like or don't like down there. In fact, more often than not I wish the South had seceded. Then they could do what they think is right and so could we.

[delayjf]

Obama's election was part of a broader reaction against GOP priorities

Disagree – IMO it was all about the economy turning south at just the right time. Americans wanted (and still do) the economy fixed and some accountability for its fall.

Libs / Progessive misinterpreted the elections as the green light to transform this Republic into a social democracy, not that it would happen over night or in one presidential term, but at least the structure (healthcare reform, cap and trade) would be in place to allow that transformation. - Progs / libs saw what they wanted to see, and are currently dumbfounded as to why they got shellacked in the election after they delivered on the issues they believed the American public wanted. I remember watching Rachael Maddow recently - she simply could not believe that Dems were doing so badly given what they had accomplished.

Ironically, almost the same set of circumstances occurred in 92 with Clinton’s election. He too, over played his hand and lost big time in the off year elections.

[JustRalph]

I read the article, Ralph. And I can say before I read it that I never considered the South even remotely Democratic in the last 40 years.

The South can do what it has to do. Honestly, I don't care what they like or don't like down there. In fact, more often than not I wish the South had seceded. Then they could do what they think is right and so could we.

My ultimate point is the future impact on the electoral college

[newtothegame]

I read the article, Ralph. And I can say before I read it that I never considered the South even remotely Democratic in the last 40 years.

The South can do what it has to do. Honestly, I don't care what they like or don't like down there. In fact, more often than not I wish the South had seceded. Then they could do what they think is right and so could we.

More of the "my way or the highway"....lol
Forget majorities...forget americans...forget everyone if it doesnt serve YOUR agenda huh NJ....lol
Well now your get the american peoples agenda....and because of your attitude, if you don't like it, you have options.
I hear the Ukraine is nice this time of year....:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

More of the "my way or the highway"....lol
Forget majorities...forget americans...forget everyone if it doesnt serve YOUR agenda huh NJ....lol
Well now your get the american peoples agenda....and because of your attitude, if you don't like it, you have options.
I hear the Ukraine is nice this time of year....:lol:

:D

Seriously though. Unlike many here I don't consider living in another country to be hell on earth. Far from it actually.

As for my agenda, my agenda is to help all of my fellow citizens achieve a high standard of living. And be free to do whatever they want as long as it hurts nobody else. Notice I didn't say to tell others what values they must adhere to. That's a predominantly Southern thing IMO.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...As for my agenda, my agenda is to help all of my fellow citizens achieve a high standard of living...

By doing what? Voting? Gambling?

[NJ Stinks]

By doing what? Voting? Gambling?

How about have access to affordable healthcare....How about by making everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden.... How about by starting to protect U.S. businesses and employees by bringing back tariffs, etc.

Those would be a good start IMO.

[Tom]

How about by making everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden....

Yeah, how about that?
Let's start with illegals. Then move to career welfare recipients.

Then Obama's administration.

And when does Charlie Rangel start his jail term?

[NJ Stinks]

Yeah, how about that?
Let's start with illegals. Then move to career welfare recipients.

Then Obama's administration.

And when does Charlie Rangel start his jail term?

Illegals are not the solution to our deficit problems. Nor are welfare recipients.

As for the Obama administration, that won't get us an hour in Afghanistan.

And didn't you hear, Tom, Charlie was kind of like an innocent spouse! :p

[fast4522]

Consumption is a huge problem, fix that and we have a chance. Getting rid of the illegals will fix many problems of consumption of services of hospitals. They drive too, and consume boatloads of gasoline which drives the price up. The list goes on and on, ending with the huge consumption of drugs, and to fix that how much less money would be exported from our economy to parts south of the border. The huge problem is we have a community organizer who knows how to manage but not fix. To fix something and not manage it just upsets every subversive apple cart funded by the taxpayer. I think the guy got off easy with just twelve stitches, now by executive order 80,000 Muslims will be let into the country, how much will they consume. Wait two years and watch the spending and you will feel like not only firing the rest of Obama's party but sending all of them into retirement with stitches too.

[newtothegame]

:D

Seriously though. Unlike many here I don't consider living in another country to be hell on earth. Far from it actually.

As for my agenda, my agenda is to help all of my fellow citizens achieve a high standard of living. And be free to do whatever they want as long as it hurts nobody else. Notice I didn't say to tell others what values they must adhere to. That's a predominantly Southern thing IMO.

I know I know.....you just want to help everyone as long as they agree with your way. Its the typical progressive book. Tell everyone your looking out for them (as long as they agree).

And were right back to where you left last time without answering.....
So, what would make you think you know whats best for your "fellow citizens" when 70% plus were against the healtcare bill?
And YOU dont have tro tell them what to adhere too...this administration is doing a good enough job for YOU. Remember the little part about fines in the healthcare bill....??? If thats not telling someone what they need to adhere too, what do you call it?

[newtothegame]

How about have access to affordable healthcare....How about by making everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden.... How about by starting to protect U.S. businesses and employees by bringing back tariffs, etc.

Those would be a good start IMO.

Next, you talk about "fair" share.......
Your problem here NJ is that what YOOU consider fair, MOST other people don't.
Again, the american people are speaking out and saying that the BUSH tax cuts need to be extended for EVERYONE. Not just those you think.

The "wealthy" in this country already pay a higher tax rate then most of us. But because they make more then us, you seem to think they should pay more.
Well answer this for me....
Lest assume for a moment that 250,000 is the number. Thats the number this administration has mentioned several times so lets use that.
Below is a hypothetical as I do NOT know actual tax rates and dont pretend too.....
Person A makes 200,000 a year and pays about 27% after everything is taken out. Thats a tax bill of 54000 per year.
Next person B who makes 250000 pays just ten percent more. Thats a tax bill of 92500.
Person A has 146000 left after taxes...
Person B has 157500 left.....
You have almost made these two people identical. And you wonder why its called redistribution of wealth.
Once everyone makes the same, then what? Who do you raise taxes on then to pay for the continued spending spree of our government?

Now I dont pretend to know the tax code and tax rates.....thats for others to get all technical with.

What I will tell you is that according to the logic of make more pay more....eventually, everyone will be making the same. That does not seem "fair" to me.
What is wrong with a tax plan that taxes you based on your spending? Kind of a useage tax? I believe its been laid out there and has a name although I cant recall it at the moment.
Whats wrong with a flat tax? Our IRS is broken and has become a money hungry machine for the government expenditures.

[NJ Stinks]

Next, you talk about "fair" share.......
Your problem here NJ is that what YOOU consider fair, MOST other people don't.
Again, the american people are speaking out and saying that the BUSH tax cuts need to be extended for EVERYONE. Not just those you think.

The "wealthy" in this country already pay a higher tax rate then most of us. But because they make more then us, you seem to think they should pay more.
Well answer this for me....
Lest assume for a moment that 250,000 is the number. Thats the number this administration has mentioned several times so lets use that.
Below is a hypothetical as I do NOT know actual tax rates and dont pretend too.....
Person A makes 200,000 a year and pays about 27% after everything is taken out. Thats a tax bill of 54000 per year.
Next person B who makes 250000 pays just ten percent more. Thats a tax bill of 92500.
Person A has 146000 left after taxes...
Person B has 157500 left.....
You have almost made these two people identical. And you wonder why its called redistribution of wealth.
Once everyone makes the same, then what? Who do you raise taxes on then to pay for the continued spending spree of our government?

Now I dont pretend to know the tax code and tax rates.....thats for others to get all technical with.

What I will tell you is that according to the logic of make more pay more....eventually, everyone will be making the same. That does not seem "fair" to me.


First and foremost, your tax example is wrong. Because it appears that you misunderstand the beauty of the progressive tax system.

Both the Person A and Person B will pay will pay $44,244 in federal income tax on the first $200,000 of taxable income. (In this case I'm assuming both Person A and Person B are married filing jointly. But if their filing status was Single they would both pay the exact same amount of federal income tax on the first $200,000 in taxable income.) Since Person A only has $200,000 in taxable income, that person's federal income tax liability is $44,244.

It is only on the extra $50,000 that Person B is subject to additional income taxes. Without making this too boring, Person B's tax liability on $250,000 of taxable income is $60,281.

Person B:
Taxable Income: $250,000
Less federal income tax liability: $60,281
Money left after federal income taxes: $189,719

Person A:
Taxable Income: $200,000
Less federal income tax liability: $44,244
Money left after federal income taxes: $155,756

Anyway, the point is that both Person A and Person B pay at the same graduated federal income tax rates on their first $200,000 of taxable income. Person B is treated exactly the same as Person A. And while it's true that Person B paid around $16,000 more in federal income tax in 2010, how bad is that? After all, Person B had $50,000 more in taxable income 2010 than Person A.

The problem with your example, Newtothegame, is that Person B will not pay anything close to 37% in federal income tax on $250,000. Nor will Person A pay anything close to 27% on federal income tax on $200,000. Our graduated federal income tax rates are pasted below. It means that everybody - no matter how much they money they make - pays 10% up to their first $16,750 in taxable income. From $16,750 to $68,000, everybody - no matter how much they money they make - pays at the 15% rate. And so on.

http://www.moneybluebook.com/2010-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges

Tax Rate
Married Couples Filing Jointly
10% Not over $16,750
15%$ 16,750 thru $68,000
25% $68,000 thru $137,300
28% $137,300 thru $209,250
33% $209,250 thru $373,650
35% Over $373,650

[johnhannibalsmith]

Mostpost - STOP private messaging NJStinks with exhibits that he can post here and pretend he came up with.

:p (that just looks way too much like a Mostpost post post-editing to remove any excessive exclamation points and misuse of the quote tag)

[NJ Stinks]

Mostpost - STOP private messaging NJStinks with exhibits that he can post here and pretend he came up with.

:p (that just looks way too much like a Mostpost post post-editing to remove any excessive exclamation points and misuse of the quote tag)


Us liberal guys have got to stick together! :cool: :)

[NJ Stinks]

What is wrong with a tax plan that taxes you based on your spending? Kind of a useage tax? I believe its been laid out there and has a name although I cant recall it at the moment.
Whats wrong with a flat tax? Our IRS is broken and has become a money hungry machine for the government expenditures.

A flat tax will hurt poorer people and help richer people.

For example, the poorer family guy makes $50,000 a year and the richer family guy makes $500,000. (I'm using those numbers because they are easy to deal with.)

At a 10% flat tax rate, the poorer guy pays $5,000 in federal income tax.
At a 10% flat tax rate, the richer guy pays $50,000 in federal income tax.

The poorer guy's family now has to stretch to live off the $45,000 he takes home. At the same time, the richer guy's family can't believe how lucky they are and happily contemplate their next luxury with the $450,000 available.

Meanwhile, the federal government is going broke because the rich guy is not paying his fair share to keep this country going.

It's kind of like the cost of gasoline. When it hits $4 a gallon most people are going to seriously cut back on optional trips. But certain people are unaffected. And you know who you are! :D

[boxcar]

Us liberal guys have got to stick together! :cool: :)

You mean like a pile of doggie dung to a sole of a shoe?

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

A flat tax will hurt poorer people and help richer people.
...

You've really outdone yourself with sincere, explicit answers, but I think Mr. Othegame was describing implementing a value added tax style system rather than the gregarious income tax that we use now. A flat tax in the sense that consumables of the same "type" are taxed at the same rate, presumably accomplishing a similar goal as a progressive system, but taking your cash as a consequence of spending it, rather than as a consequence of earning it.

Right?

[NJ Stinks]

You've really outdone yourself with sincere, explicit answers, but I think Mr. Othegame was describing implementing a value added tax style system rather than the gregarious income tax that we use now. A flat tax in the sense that consumables of the same "type" are taxed at the same rate, presumably accomplishing a similar goal as a progressive system, but taking your cash as a consequence of spending it, rather than as a consequence of earning it.

Right?

Newtothegame did raise the possibility of a VAT. I forgot he did and focused on the flat tax. I'm not anti-VAT. But not in place of federal income tax. (I can just see the VAT exemption list now - once the lobbyists do their work.)

[newtothegame]

First and foremost, your tax example is wrong. Because it appears that you misunderstand the beauty of the progressive tax system.

Both the Person A and Person B will pay will pay $44,244 in federal income tax on the first $200,000 of taxable income. (In this case I'm assuming both Person A and Person B are married filing jointly. But if their filing status was Single they would both pay the exact same amount of federal income tax on the first $200,000 in taxable income.) Since Person A only has $200,000 in taxable income, that person's federal income tax liability is $44,244.

It is only on the extra $50,000 that Person B is subject to additional income taxes. Without making this too boring, Person B's tax liability on $250,000 of taxable income is $60,281.

Person B:
Taxable Income: $250,000
Less federal income tax liability: $60,281
Money left after federal income taxes: $189,719

Person A:
Taxable Income: $200,000
Less federal income tax liability: $44,244
Money left after federal income taxes: $155,756

Anyway, the point is that both Person A and Person B pay at the same graduated federal income tax rates on their first $200,000 of taxable income. Person B is treated exactly the same as Person A. And while it's true that Person B paid around $16,000 more in federal income tax in 2010, how bad is that? After all, Person B had $50,000 more in taxable income 2010 than Person A.

The problem with your example, Newtothegame, is that Person B will not pay anything close to 37% in federal income tax on $250,000. Nor will Person A pay anything close to 27% on federal income tax on $200,000. Our graduated federal income tax rates are pasted below. It means that everybody - no matter how much they money they make - pays 10% up to their first $16,750 in taxable income. From $16,750 to $68,000, everybody - no matter how much they money they make - pays at the 15% rate. And so on.

http://www.moneybluebook.com/2010-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges

Tax Rate
Married Couples Filing Jointly
10% Not over $16,750
15%$ 16,750 thru $68,000
25% $68,000 thru $137,300
28% $137,300 thru $209,250
33% $209,250 thru $373,650
35% Over $373,650

Well although I readily admitted I didnt know the tax codes etc etc...
You proved my point!
What once was a 50,000 difference in the examples, became 34,000.
Now if you continue down the road, at some point the pays equalize.
What incentive do I have as a business owner to CREATE jobs, to earn the same as someone with alot less risk?

And, you never commented on a consumption type tax. Do away with the IRS (which itself is bloated with employees and i'm sure outrageous pay) and charge people based on what they consume. Whats wrong with that?
If you still wish to go after the rich, there are things like luxury taxes. At least they have a choice in the matter as to whether or not to buy.

[newtothegame]

Sorry I posted my reply before I finished reading the whole thread....
The government is going broke because of itself!
Need to learn what a budget is......
You mentioned the family stretching 45,000.....why can't the government learn to do with what it has before forcing everyone to the poor house?

[boxcar]

Well although I readily admitted I didnt know the tax codes etc etc...
You proved my point!
What once was a 50,000 difference in the examples, became 34,000.
Now if you continue down the road, at some point the pays equalize.
What incentive do I have as a business owner to CREATE jobs, to earn the same as someone with alot less risk?

And, you never commented on a consumption type tax. Do away with the IRS (which itself is bloated with employees and i'm sure outrageous pay) and charge people based on what they consume. Whats wrong with that?
If you still wish to go after the rich, there are things like luxury taxes. At least they have a choice in the matter as to whether or not to buy.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: You are a man after m'own heart. Institute the Fair Tax and watch the economy grow due to significantly reduced costs in goods and services!

What's not to like about a system that that puts the wealth-generators and producers in control through the application of the "means test" to both purchases and, therefore, tax payments? What's not to like about a tax system that is simple and entirely transparent? What's not to like about a tax system that would abolish the use of it for welfare, wealth-redistribution and social engineering purposes? What's not like about a tax system whereby April 15th is just another day in our lives? What's not to like about a system that would greatly reduce government payroll due to IRS agents no longer being needed? What's not to like about a tax system that would abolish an equally unnecessary multi-billion dollar tax industry?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: You are a man after m'own heart. Institute the Fair Tax and watch the economy grow due to significantly reduced costs in goods and services!

What's not to like about a system that that puts the wealth-generators and producers in control through the application of the "means test" to both purchases and, therefore, tax payments? What's not to like about a tax system that is simple and entirely transparent? What's not to like about a tax system that would abolish the use of it for welfare, wealth-redistribution and social engineering purposes? What's not like about a tax system whereby April 15th is just another day in our lives? What's not to like about a system that would greatly reduce government payroll due to IRS agents no longer being needed? What's not to like about a tax system that would abolish an equally unnecessary multi-billion dollar tax industry?

Boxcar

Two questions immediately come to mind:

1. Who is going to make sure the flat tax collected is turned over to the government? The TSA? :eek:

2. So we eliminate another industry and all the jobs created by it - namely the accounting industry. Are you sure that's a good idea with unemployment at 10%? :jump:

[newtothegame]

Two questions immediately come to mind:

1. Who is going to make sure the flat tax collected is turned over to the government? The TSA? :eek:

2. So we eliminate another industry and all the jobs created by it - namely the accounting industry. Are you sure that's a good idea with unemployment at 10%? :jump:

1. Come on...you can't be serious NJ...
There are many different entities who currently collect taxes on local levels. Example..in my community, sherrifs office is tasked with collecting property taxes. That money seems to find its way into our local governments just fine. So I am sure they can come up with someone..geeze.

2. No, your not eliminating ANY industry. Since you libs like redistribution so well...here's a thought...Let's REDISTRIBUTE all those IRS (116,000 as of 2005) employees into the private sector. Do you not think that companies would hire or have a need to hire at least that many to take care of additional accounting? Of course I am sure though it wont pay as much as those government bloated giants. Then again...who knows :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

1. Come on...you can't be serious NJ...
There are many different entities who currently collect taxes on local levels. Example..in my community, sherrifs office is tasked with collecting property taxes. That money seems to find its way into our local governments just fine. So I am sure they can come up with someone..geeze.



Somebody determines the amount of the property tax assessment and the property owner either pays that amount over to the local government or the sheriffs office enforces payment.

With the flat (or fair) tax, nobody knows the total amount a merchant collected from hs customers. So nobody knows how much flat/fair tax the merchant must fork over to the federal government. Somebody is going to have to audit the merchant's books to find out what the merchant actually owes vs. what he actually paid. The sherriffs office is not that somebody.

[newtothegame]

Somebody determines the amount of the property tax assessment and the property owner either pays that amount over to the local government or the sheriffs office enforces payment.

With the flat (or fair) tax, nobody knows the total amount a merchant collected from hs customers. So nobody knows how much flat/fair tax the merchant must fork over to the federal government. Somebody is going to have to audit the merchant's books to find out what the merchant actually owes vs. what he actually paid. The sherriffs office is not that somebody.

Not exactly that simple NJ...or actually it is.
Companies have to report ALL sales as it is now. How do you think local taxes are collected?:bang:
Its just a hope skip and jump to federal levels. As to the luxury tax part I previously spoke of...again simple. Companies report durable goods reports...its not that hard! If there is a will there is a way....
Seems you just have no will. Seems you would rather keep hundreds of thousands of overpaid, unhelpful IRS employees.
Me, I would rather find an alternative that is almost already in place!

[NJ Stinks]

Not exactly that simple NJ...or actually it is.
Companies have to report ALL sales as it is now. How do you think local taxes are collected?:bang:
Its just a hope skip and jump to federal levels. As to the luxury tax part I previously spoke of...again simple. Companies report durable goods reports...its not that hard! If there is a will there is a way....
Seems you just have no will. Seems you would rather keep hundreds of thousands of overpaid, unhelpful IRS employees.
Me, I would rather find an alternative that is almost already in place!

No doubt states have their own auditors trying to make sure merchants pay the correct amount of sales tax due. I agree with your idea that the federal government could piggyback on those state auditors somehow.

[WeirdWilly]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9665415

))
I'm disappointed with you. I'm saddened by you. I am angry that I believed in the hope you promised us, and then turned your back on us.

As that lady at a town hall meeting said, “I’m tired of defending you.”

You asked us to be patient. Patience doesn’t include being repeatedly sold out.

You promised us change. But you didn’t mention it was change for the worse.

You implicitly asked for our trust. And then you betrayed us.

I have no idea how you view your performance in office. And I no longer care.

Please step aside in 2012 and allow us to vote for someone who will stand up for us.

You held out to us the dream of greatness. Yet, you’ve become a small, pathetic man. And nothing saddens me more than that.
((

---------------------------------------------

Naturally the leftists want Kucinich, Greyson, or Feingold.

I admit, if it wasn't so terrifying they might, by miracle, get elected - I think it would be amusing to have a left-wing extremist as the Democratic party candidate in 2012.

However, the amusement factor is not worth the risk of "President Greyson". :eek: