70% of Dems want Obama to work with GOP

•Eighty percent say the president should work to pass legislation Democrats and Republicans can agree on, even if it's not what most Democrats want. Even 70% of Democrats polled feel that way.

•Eighty-three percent say it's extremely or very important for House Republicans to pass legislation that both parties can agree on. Even 77% of Republicans polled feel that way.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-17-poll-obama-house_N.htm

sentence. Let's see 'even if it's not what most Democrats want'.

Where is the phrase 'even if it's not what most Republicans want' in the second sentence?

And exactly what issues can we expect Republicans to propose that any Democrat could agree on?

These polls make me laugh. It's always that the Democrats need to give up their core values just so they can be bi-partisan. Clearly they did not poll any of the Democrats I know and that would be quite a few.

Say it isnt so!
:scared:

rather than do nothing on principle.

It ended up increasing the tax rate on the bottom 50m tax payers compared to the current rate.

the poverty line).

While you don't think that's a good thing, the entire point of this poll is that you are in a tiny minority (even of Democrats).

Dismissing it by saying "it could have been worse, paupers" is showing the same callousness Larry Summers showed when asked about it. Those millions of poor people will see their paychecks go down slightly this year compared to last. As part of a tax "compromise" that was supposed to be stimulative. They could have fixed it easily by reinstating a partial MWP credit for the affected workers or by expanding EITC. But they didn't care. After all, it wasn't like important people would be affected. And you can always tell the paupers that "it could have been worse". Right?

Have you thought about how the GOP could leverage this to their advantage? "THE DEMOCRATS RAISED YOUR TAXES WHILE CUTTING THEM FOR THE RICH!!"

A family of 4 at the poverty line will lose 400 dollars per year due to the tax compromise. If there were no tax compromise, they would have lost over 2000/year. So yes, it could have been much, much worse (five times worse for that family). Just because you don't like "it could be worse" statements doesn't make them any less true.

Are enough to shut up the paupers it doesn't make them so. Especially when the top income earners are getting thousands more from the SS holiday, which will be paid for by the general fund. Which means fewer dollars going to public assistance programs that help that family at the poverty line. Where did you think the money for that SS payroll holiday that disproportionately helps middle class to wealthy taxpayers was going to come from?

"Which means fewer dollars going to public assistance programs that help that family at the poverty line."

Absolutely false. Show me in the law where "fewer dollars" are going to public assistance programs. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Dollars are lowered to public assistance programs when Congress passes and the President signs a law doing so. Not at any other time.

"Where did you think the money for that SS payroll holiday that disproportionately helps middle class to wealthy taxpayers was going to come from?"

The deficit. That is the ENTIRE POINT of stimulus -- to INCREASE the deficit.

Unless he gets his pound of flesh.

Sure it won't.

And I predict you will be one of DU's born again deficit hawks when that time comes.

30% of Democratic voters voted for a third party candidate that ran to the left of Obama?

He won the 2008 election by less than 7% of voters.

Even if 10% of the party split away, he would more than likely lose the next election.

Now tell me how a supposedly left leaning president ignores 30% of Democrats?

I'd like to reduce military spending by a third to half, end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, take the cap off the payroll tax, undo the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, institute a wealth tax, and properly financed single payer health care.

But I understand the difference between what I want and what is doable.

I don't know what it will look like in the end, but there will be things we like and dislike, for sure.

:)

cost the taxpayers over $700 billion dollars added to the deficit? And here we thought that reducing the deficit was what Democrats were all about!!

But wait, they are going to cut SS by raising the retirement age, to begin with! That will make the people think that they are reducing the deficit!! Except it won't. We KNOW that SS has nothing to do with the deficit but they will try to lie to us about it anyhow.

What 'compromise' do you think the Republicans should make now that they got what they wanted? Should the president feel that they owe HIM a compromise on SS? Should they agree to NOT raise the retirement age eg? And if not, why not? Is it just Democrats who are supposed to 'compromise'?

And why did Democrats who had the majority allow Republicans to tie UI to the Bush Tax Cuts? How did THAT happen?

I think it's time to face facts, in fact it's way past time. They are all working for the wealthy, both parties. But maybe they should start watching what is happening in other countries where the people are a lot less compliant than it appears we are here.

There is simply NO acceptable excuse for extending the Bush tax cuts. Another campaign promise broken. Is anyone keeping track of all the broken campaign promises? I think they are.

the bill was to things other than tax cuts for income over 250k (such as tax cuts for income below 250k).

I also agree it is time to face facts. You should start by making sure your post is indeed factual.

Maybe you can talk to him about 'facts':

Udall: Extending Deficit-Busting Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires is Irresponsible



That used to be the position of every Democrat I know. What happened?

I could add several more links to people whose opinions I respect far more than party loyalists' who seem willing to fritter away the future of this country for a short-term political gain. But if you can demonstrate how this gift to the wealthy is of any benefit whatsoever to this country after the past ten years of tax cuts, which cost this country nearly two trillion dollars and NO job creation, I am all ears (and eyes). However, you should know I have spent a great deal of time on the studies of just what these tax cuts cost and the total lack of benefit to the average worker they produced.

I also remember a candidate who was aware of all this and promised to let them expire. But it was the promise that expired and the wealthy will make sure that in two years those tax cuts will remain in place because they own this government.

Don't bother trying to defend it. A majority of the American people opposed this extension. But the people no longer count in this so-called democracy, that is clear. What IS interesting is the fact that you could not find a Democrat on any democratic forum while Bush was president who supported these tax cuts for the rich. We are learning a great deal about the political process since Democrats gained the majority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/americans-support-major-elements-tax-compromise.aspx

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years, and an identical number support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

If you are going to argue against the tax compromise, you should make sure you are using true information first.

As for Udall, he even says it: the 700 billion figure is over 10 years. The bill that passed is over 2. 700 billion divided by 5 = 140 billion.

The gift to the wealthy is not of any benefit to the country. I never said it was. However, it was a necessary price to get Republicans to agree to extend the tax cuts for the other 98% in the middle of a recession. If you want to tell an average family at the poverty line that they could do just fine if they were to lose $2000 next year, in the middle of the current economy, that is your prerogative.

"I also remember a candidate who was aware of all this and promised to let them expire."

That's funny -- I also remember a candidate who promised that the bottom 250k income tax would not go up BY ONE DIME. Those were his words. By. One. Dime.

When polls asked only about extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the results, as you most likely know well, were very different. That poll asked 'for all Americans'. It was a push poll as everyone with half a brain knows.

We had a majority. There was never any need to bargain with Republicans over this. This should NOT have been kept 'off the table' during the campaign. But it was. We are no longer fooled by these excuses.

Leaders lead, they get done what needs to be done. A leader doesn't ask people to follow him into battle promising to fight, and then when faced with the enemy, before the fight even begins and even when HIS army is bigger and stronger, without a shot being fire, throw down his weapons and raise a white flag.

And that is what has happened to those of us who chose Democrats to lead the fight to restore this country to sanity. We were given the rallying cry, but when got to the battle field we watched time after time as the white flag was raised and we were told to throw down our arms.

The fact is that both parties work for the rich and there is really nothing more to say about it. We know that now.

Much of the tax cuts are things the GOP likes. John McCain ran on doubling the child tax credit yet the WH tells us that's something we "got" in the compromise. That tax credit goes mostly to middle class Republican parents. No way in HELL they were going to let that one go. They've also wanted a payroll tax holiday for a long time.

If I think something is favorable, I wouldn't shun it just because I'm afraid the Republicans might like it as well.

I just wouldn't call it a win when they wanted it too. It's a wash.

So, do you have any suggestions as to what else the people can give up to help keep the wealthy living the life-style they have grown accustomed to? I'm sure Republicans have some suggestions, and I'm equally sure that Democrats will 'compromise' in the interests of 'bi-partisanship'. And I'm even more certain that the average worker will be screwed yet again out of the little they have left.

So, what have ordinary people gotten from Democrats over the past two years while they had the majority?

small minority?

'Eighty percent of Democrats want legislation that they are against'? That doesn't make logical sense.

The question was whether the President should work with Republicans to pass legislation that they could agree on, even if most Democrats were against it. "Most democrats" does not equal the poll respondent -- the poll respondent might well be in favor of the legislation.

In fact, I would even say your formulation of the question makes perfect logical sense for a "yes" response (tons of people agree to compromises that they don't like to avoid fighting all the time), but your formulation is a false description of the poll in any event.

Democratic voters. I interpret that sentence as stating that Democratic politicians should enact legislation that they can agree with Republican legislators on, even if Democratic voters aren't for it. That is a legitimate interpretation of the sentence.

someone can like a compromise even if a majority of Democratic voters don't like it. The poll respondent is not necessarily in the majority that don't like it. They may very much like it.

In fact, many poll respondents probably had entirely different visions of what "most Democrats" support.

So the result is certainly not logically impossible. The point of the question was to ask if there should be more compromise, even if each side gives up somewhat, and most people say yes. I'm not criticizing people who disagree that we should compromise -- I'm just pointing out that this is one of many examples to show that DU is not a representative sample of Democrats or even "liberal Democrats," and that poll results are not untrue just because one doesn't like them or agree with the question.

it's still baloney --

can't see that the overwhelming majority of people don't think like them. So they back-slap comforting voices and put anyone that dare disagree on ignore, all the while becoming more irrelevant to the overall pace of politics and life.

You don't know -- however, what is clear is that this isn't believable

any more than our computer voting "wins" and "loses" are believable!!

Carefully gleaned from all of the poll responses we've made over the years to their other stupid polls, while we were screaming about Bush at the DU forum.

Questions like --

1. Do you think President Bush is doing a good job?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

2. Do you think President Bush is like Superman for the great job he's doing?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

3. If you had a chance, would you have a beer with President Bush?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

4. If you had a chance, would you marry President Bush?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

5. When President Bush retires, would you still want to marry him since he is such a Superman type of guy?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

6. Do you sometimes find yourself day-dreaming that you were President Bush?
a. Yes, quite a bit
b. Yes, but he could do more
c. Unsure, I think he's just marking time
d. No, he could do much more
e. No, he's a bum

All responses will be kept confidential.
Please fill in your name, address, and phone number.
We are not liable in case your information is not kept confidential.

they steal elections, who not rig polls?

just make up 30%?

Anyone from either side that agrees 100% with their respective party line probably doesn't do a lot of critical thinking of their own. What is a "core value" to one Dem, may not be to another. I score pretty high on the Dem scale, but there are things I completely disagree with like many of the more ridiculous firearms controls (which is probably largely due to where I live and that my son is a deputy sheriff). Although I don't agree with the general Dem stance on that issue, I also sure don't buy into the NRA line either. It is somewhere in the middle. Why is working together toward a middle ground such a horrible thing for either side to do?

That's it really in a nutshell, keep "meeting in the middle" with a group like the Republicans who are constantly moving to the right and the center of political gravity moves inexorably to the right even if the Dems don't really want to go that way which I think a lot of them really do.

have shifted to the right -- but it's right wing wealth and corporate $$ which

has done that -- not the will of the people.

I certainly don't see that the public has moved --

certainly not liberals --

Agree that we have one right wing party now and one radical right wing party on its

way to being the new Fourth Reich!

And if Obama is in the middle of that -- he's waaaay far to the right!!


As far as I know the public hasn't changed -- quite a bit confused at all the right

wing propaganda coming their way which Democrats haven't bothered to respond to or

counter for decades now -- except Obama during his campaign fund-raising! -- but

other than that don't think the public has changed --

In fact, I think they may be more liberal than ever!! Largest anti-war sentiments ever!!


:)

all pollsters show tremendous support for Obama among the base, liberals, Democrats, or however the "left" is formulated. The only way in that case for one to assert those results are false is to say all of polling is bad, not just 70%.

smells like BS.

There are so few things in life that you can regularly depend upon, but that is one of them.

Democratic friends and family, a very large group, don't think that way. Even the ones who are not political. If there is that large a percentage as in the poll I would think maybe one of them would feel that way. They don't. Even the republicans I know would prefer Obama not give in to the republicans.

Why is that?

their party over their Country. Some do realize that the last 8 or 10 years or so have done quite a bit of damage to our Country and are not too thrilled with the direction it has gone in.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it will involve compromise.

They'll agree to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for permanent Bush tax cuts and SS cuts.

Let's wait for the facts to come in.

If you favor working with the Republicans, then it necessarily means agreeing to eliminate some of the health care law or potentially all of the health care law in exchange for something else. Everything could be on the table as far as compromise goes.

You have to compromise accordingly.

People always say "they should work together". The Republicans could be eating live babies on the House floor and a majority of poll respondents would still say Obama should work with the GOP.

This suits only the needs of statistical analysis which is often biased --

and those who buy their services to move these biases.

The polls we want to see we will never see -- those would be the polls the

elites do to really find out where the public stands -- stuff they'd never publish!!

So what's your point?

:shrug:

Guess that means the President and Dems have to compromise with whacked out Tea Party ideas. Great.

Last time I checked the Demcratic Party won the Presidential Election. I believe Junior said it best (I rarely say things like that) but get over it....it should be up to the Republicans to work with the President.

Is this poll saying that supposedly 70% of Democrats want President Obama to capitulate like Bill Clinton did with things like DADT? I don't think so...

Yes, yes-- I know. "The poll" claims that, not you. But you actually think that makes sense?

Even if it did, it would still make sense (people make compromises all the time, even compromises resulting in things they don't want), but regardless of whether your formulation is accurate, your formulation does not reflect the actual poll. Re-read the poll. It talks about legislation "most Democrats" don't want, not legislation the actual poll responder doesn't want. It is obviously possible for people to have their own opinion on what "most Democrats" want, independent of what they themselves want.

Your response sounds a lot like Republicans who oppose global warming. "Man-made global warming doesn't make logical sense! We have climate cycles all the time! So the data MUST be false!"

And kicked their heels hard enough that most Democrats say just give them what they want to shut them the fuck up.

Give in to tantrums and you get more tantrums, any halfway decent parent knows that in his or her bones.

And make no mistake, what the Republicans are doing is throwing a tantrum.

The permissive parent Democrats need to give some tough love to the spoiled children Republicans. But they won't.

nothing that precludes that!

polls in my face as if to have some sort of point. I don't do any polling to determine what I should be for or against.

when in reality the "base" approves of Obama by stratospheric and unprecedented margins.

I don't think it is directed towards people who simply articulate their own opinion, without making broader claims about support for this opinion among Democrats in general.

last midterm (which changed control of the House and Senate towards Democrats). And those liberals voted for Democrats at a HIGHER percentage in 2010 than in the last midterm.

Believe it or not, sometimes elections are not decided by the Democratic party base.

That's what I keep being told here. Why didn't we do at least as well, turnout wise, as we did in 2006?

That's how elections are decided.

Because he was too leftist? That's funny because President Obama seemed to be pretty committed to running away from the Left.

did so because he was "too liberal."

Some people in the Republican base were just as pissed that Bush was "running away from the right." Just because a small portion on both sides will never be satisfied that their President is sufficiently left/right doesn't mean that is the vast majority of the population (or even the party in question) agrees.

What issues should he track further to the right on?

I am talking about a poll result and its accuracy. I am not talking about my own opinions. In my opinion, things like the tax cut deal and healthcare reform were not "tacks to the right," since they were the best options out of the alternatives actually feasible.

I guess cuts to SS will be hunky dory with you.

Not that every single member of the base doesn't believe they were betrayed. A small portion of the bases of both parties will always believe they were betrayed. I never said you weren't part of the base.

when he has been, at least in his efforts, while they engage in pettiness and vitriol? Most people I come into contact with want him to be more agressive in the other direction. I'm saying that I must not be in the mainstream of the party anymore nor many people I hang with.

and fly but that ain't gonna happen either. Republicans will obstruct, fight and oppose anything President Obama or the Democrats introduce. They all took Nancy Reagan's advice: "Just say NO!"

People often don't know what they want.

i.e., drag a few of them kicking and screaming into the 20th century so we can get the proper legislation passed.

So far it's worked out badly for Democrats, however, there is good news for that 70%.

The two sides have finally found common ground and they've signaled a willingness to work together on austerity measures which will allow the public to "share sacrifice". I wonder if the 70% will still be happy when their tax bills rise, their pensions get stripped and the value of their SS savings is eroded by design.

That same 70% wants a balanced budget by taxing the rich but unfortunately for all of us there is not a chance in hell they'll be getting that wish.

And, that the sham of a "two party system" can be dropped?

Fuck them. They have been nothing but obstructionists, why cater to them now.

in-depth...anything. During the bush years we found quite a few problems with their reporting.

One of the reasons I don't trust their polls is because they don't usually provide a link to them. They just report on them.

I participated in a thread the other day in which the report, very obviously, made claims that were not at all supported by the poll results.

Do you have a link to the poll? That would help a lot. I may be missing something but I can't find it at the article.

Dear jumping Jesus, where do you get this polls?

USA Today?

LMFAO/

If you disagree with the accuracy of basically every poll, isn't that your problem (not the problem of all the polls)?

but liberals? No. You have changed the meaning of the word to suit your needs.

Liberals do not support Obama. They can't. They want to. But they can't do it in good conscience.

Probably in the same area as the 2000 election!

:popcorn:

Which republicans?
There may be a couple of them who are willing to do that - in a deniable way.

Very few Republicans in Congress have the courage to work with Obama.

Why don't you quote the Washington Fucking Post or Fox News while you're at it?

usatoday

Then I'm on board.

Otherwise, not so much.

-Hoot