1 - 10 Next
There is no need to go that far- How about we try some sensible legistation first? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
They were at 90% in the 50's so 50% seems fair.
You are making threats to the president. No smart.
I am so tired of hearing the same ridiculous mantra that spending is so out of control. No one cared when bush was spending like a drunk in Vegas-opening a new gov. depts-homeland security, passing liberal education and medical plans with NCLB and Medicare part D, starting two wars-let me say that again-2 wars. No one made a peep. Now suddenly when a dem gets in office, spending is a problem and the solution. 'Let's cut entitlements. Let's make our country more like that of Mexico or Brazil.' I'm dubious of the motives. Sounds like a scam . The majority voted for tax cuts on the rich. That is what the president is asking for. I don't think it is unreasonable.
Yes but that was when he was trying to compromise with republicans. They refused. The tables have turned and now the president does not have to compromise.
Great points! They do seem to have a dismal view of dem voters.
It sounds like you are really angry so then what are the republicans going to do? If they do not have the base to vote for them who will?
It is the republicans who watsed money on losing candidates in the last election. Not the republicans willbe forced to compromise with O, making them look weak and agering their base. The electoral prospects of the r's do not look good in 2014.
Repulicans are going to cave to O. Then the base will be mad at them and won't come out for 2014 causing the R's to lose more seats in congress. Or maybe the base will insist on a more rightwing candidate to run against the dem candidate another losing strategy.
The republicans are alreasdy permanently branded as protectors of the rich. This is going to be their problem in 2014.
1 - 10 Next