2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

So I intended to hold my peace, but I find that difficult. So let me clarify my meaning first.

Not sure about that, as we are seeing in France now as well as in California, high taxes can cause people to flee.

My point is that increased taxes, to any degree, on a marginal portion of the population is not as significant as taxes on say, the middle class. That's just the numbers.

And I would note that the Republican party did not take it as a joke. And obviously the actions of Obama and the Democrats reflected his sentiment. From Obamacare to the Stimulus the Republicans found themselves on the outside looking in with the Democrats more concerned with getting support from the Blue Dogs in their own party instead of the Republican party.

Again, I'm not going to say Obama's statement was necessarily a wise choice; I also don't think the Republicans needed an excuse to refuse to compromise. Nor do most Democrats. But I highly doubt Obama's comment had any significant bearing on the actions of the Republican party. The other causes you cite are certainly more likely.

Excuse me but the reasonable tax increases were $800 billion, by a increase of $400 billion, Obama not only betrayed Boehner but also reached for a bridge too far. Like it or not the $1 trillion level, is a line that no politician really wants to cross, as noted by the Stimulus and Obamacare struggling to remain under that line.

You make it all sound so very Machiavellian. Really, Obama just saw what he thought was a better deal, took it, realized his mistake, and then reversed his decision. In an understanding society, in which politics are mutable, this would not be a problem. Furthermore, $1 trillion is still an arbitrary number and "reasonable" is clearly up for debate, but if the net effect was still a tax reduction for the middle class and the poor, which is the most significant factor in growing the economy, then what are we worrying about?

Obama tried to walk back to the reasonable deal after he had betrayed Boehner, betrayed the work, and had created upheaval in both parties. The idea that Boehner would go back to the table after all Obama had done to kill the deal in the first place is ludicrous. Your efforts to act as if Obama is some kind of good hearted person working against the Partisan Forces seems to remain absolutely ignorant to the point of absurdity of Obama's own effort to kill the deal he made with Boehner in the first place.

"Good-hearted" is a strong word to describe any politician. But I do think Obama is looking out for the American people, and especially those that have been trampled by business-as-usual. And yes, Obama made a bold move by asking for increases; but for Boehner to consider this a "betrayal" and refuse to return to the table for negotiations on the previous deal because of some bad blood and hurt feelings is just juvenile. If Obama really wanted to kill the deal he made with Boehner he certainly wouldn't have tried to compromise after Boehner rejected the alternative.

So your proof is a pledge, one that usually politicians sign to get support from the voters. You have no proof of the inside of the meetings as I have posted, no proof of anything said in the capital, no whip count, you have a pledge. You realize how pathetic of a argument that is?

I gesture to the pledge as an example of unnecessary political theatrics, which some Republicans have clearly taken too much to heart. Note that I'm not disagreeing that the $800 billion deal would have been easier to achieve. Your argument clearly supports that. Obama overestimated the potential to succeed at passing a bill with $1.2 trillion in revenues.

Growing? As you have noticed we are stuck in a malaze, we have the lowest workforce participation in decades. We have employment growing at a rate lower than population growth. How is Obama's economic efforts contributing to a growing economy?

The specific merits of the economic recovery are something that may be too complex to discuss in this kind of space. But suffice to say I've heard it both ways from various sources on either side of the aisle. Either way, Romney's desire to continue to decrease taxes on the wealthy, uphold current tax loopholes, and continue with "trickle down" economic policies would be more stifling to any growth than any effect Obama's policies might have had. The long-term effects on income inequality in this country from Romney's economic plan, moreover, are outright disturbing.

We can go back and forth as to what Scientists agree...

No, we can't. If you don't think Global Warming is scientific fact, you're simply ignorant of the copious amount of data that is available, and how it should best be interpreted. This is not up for debate.

...however it remains ignorant on your part not to understand the politics that have been injected into it. Just as it remains ignorant on your part not to understand that there is no real great alternative right now to fight Global Warming. I will point you to Germany who has worked very hard to transform itself into a Green Energy country, it's power grid is so poor now, that it is facing serious black outs next winter due to inadequacy in power supply from it's own green energy program.

I didn't say it wasn't political. But this is one situation where the current American political climate is simply in ignorance of reality, and the Republican party, which continues to ignore climate change, must bear the greater part of the blame. There is no one answer to Global Warming, I agree. But to do nothing is much, much worse. Moreover, there are various win-win, profitable options that most businesses could readily implement; but America has failed to achieve even these. And largely because of the continued denial of the existence of climate change. But it's already here, and it will get much, much worse.

Germany's potential for increased black-outs has nothing to do with its "green energy" programs. It has everything to do with their accelerated exit from nuclear energy, which was provoked by the events in Japan. I actually think nuclear power plants are a much better alternative to those run on coal or natural gas; nuclear energy may not be renewable, but it is certainly more manageable, as it has less impact on our atmosphere. However, it's clear that we need to look for other alternatives too.