Not "the rich." A few "obscenely rich" people (like the Koch brothers and the defense industry moguls).
The defense industry moguls? What have they done to indicate to you they want to see the demise of the country?
And, I know the political climate is scary!. . .But I disagree that it is President Obama's fault. I believe that (as your CEO says) the MEDIA (especially Fox News) has been fear mongering every since Obama was elected. . .and it worked!
I didn't see in his statement that he blamed the media for anything...I think most business leaders see the typical political rhetoric for what it is...but Wynn sounds legitimately concerned about concrete issues such as rising healthcare costs, burdensome regulations, and the continued "redistribution" rhetoric...which makes it sounds like more than just rhetoric.
I also wish Obama was more definite on his standing, and less compromising. . .but, having read his book (Audacity of Hope) twice, it made it perfectly clear that he was a pragmatist, and that he always prefer to build conscensus than to force his believes on others.
I don't see how he expects to build consensus when he attempts to hold himself above the fray in debate after debate....like healthcare, spending etc etc. You can't build a consensus if you don't get involved.
The problem is that the GOP doesn't want compromise, doesn't want conscensus! Further to the center (and even to the Right) Obama moves, more openings he makes to the GOP, and more extreme the GOP gets.
So. ..If i have anything to "beat up" Obama with it would be to just cut his losses with the GOP and move much further to his base, to the Left! The hell with people who don't want to compromise. . . .If half an apple is not good enough for the GOP, if 3/4 of an apple is not good enough, then take the whole apple and let them starve!
The far left doesn't want compromise either...if he is going to write off those who want no compromise, then he needs to stay in the middle.
I'm sorry he compromised on extending the Bush tax cuts last year, even if he did it for the middle class and the unemployed. . .I think he should have let ALL the tax cut expired.
I think he accepted that those cuts were really very beneficial for the poor and middle class (something they wouldn't admit in the campaign), and that is why he extended it.
There is a time when a "parent" needs to be the parent, and stop being his kid's friend!
This is a good
WSJ article on the issue.
"Here Ms. Rubin puts her finger on something that maddens those of us who favor lower taxes and modest spending: the inherent bias in the way Washington debates are presented to the American people. This bias is not so much shilling for a particular position as it is a general disposition to accept the Democratic Party context in which tax and spending issues are debated and resolved.
In this case of the debt-ceiling talks, that context is pretty clear. At its core, it runs like this. First, "keep taxes low" may work as a campaign slogan with the unlettered masses, but it is incompatible with the responsibilities of running a government. Second, when government spends more than it takes in, the answer must consequently be to raise taxes. Conclusion: The politician who prefers to cut spending rather than raise taxes is either irresponsible or a tool of the rich—or some combination of both.
.......They are not the first to be handicapped in a budget fight. Remember the deficit talks in 1990 between then-President George H.W. Bush and the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress. Mr. Bush had memorably pledged, "Read my lips: No new taxes." Alas, when the deficit numbers started coming in larger than expected, he abandoned his pledge. He ended up raising taxes as part of a deal that took away his credibility without (as we can see) doing anything real to put Washington on a better path toward living within its means.
Then as now, Democrats entered the talks with one goal in mind: Force their Republican opponents to discredit themselves politically by abandoning their tax pledge. Then as now, Democrats were abetted by a press corps that embraced the same context for the debate—i.e., the idea that raising taxes was the "responsible" thing to do."
The idea of the "adult in the room" is entirely bogus in my view.
Obama will probably lose the reelection (at least if the GOP comes up with a half decent alternative!. .which is still unclear!), so he might just as well go with gusto and SCREW those who have made it their priority to make him fail!
There is NO WAY McCain/Palin would have done half as well as Obama has, and they wouldn't have taken so much "organic fertilizer!"
I am not so sure he will lose. From a campaign perspective, his campaign was amazing, and even though Republicans have some momentum right now, that can change overnight.
