Now that’s just not true and you know it.
Neither side has been compromising well (meant only as a reversal, not a singular, damn language). The present bill gives both sides what they want, they just have to give something up to get it. Its as good as its going to get, and they won’t bite.
So, what did the Republicans compromise on? (Hint: Compromise means having to give up something you want.)
The Republican position would be that ‘compromise’ means they let these bills through at all. Take healthcare. They would tell you that letting it pass in any way shape or form was a compromise to begin with.
Apart from being untrue, this is the kind of answer you ever really get out of them. They take democratic compromises and turn them into theirs. It’s weird.
And off topic, yes. It’s actually a reference to Final Fantasy and an inside joke between my CS: S friends and I. 
They want unemployment payments to expire, and had given that up.
That was part of the deal Obama made when he compromised on HIS end first to prolong the tax cuts. A stipulation basically. Okay, fine, I’ll extend on the tax cuts if you can extend unemployment.
Its a compromise.
Initiated by Obama because the GOP came out and said flat out that they refuse to even look at anything else until they get their way.
One side seems to be willing to propose these compromises, one doesn’t.
One person seems to be willing.
It was a bluff not a compromise. If Obama had played shit right he could have called them out on it. Exposed just how fucking corrupt they are. He could have said “The Republicans are threatening to cut benefits to the millions of laid-off if I don’t allow them to give BILLIONS in tax breaks to the ridiculously rich people who laid-off those workers.” This would have put tghe Republicans in a very uncomfortable place and had all those people currently on unemployment benefits pissed as hell. Instead, he INSTANTLY caved to the Republicans. I would agree with all the people saying “Obama is compromising” " Obama is doing his best" etc. if he were actually fighting, but he isn’t. He’s sitting there and taking it and then begging for more. We need someone like FDR who has some real “Piss 'n Vinegar”. It wasn’t just a coincidence the depression ended under a president who was about getting shit done, not sitting on his ass and compromising. And it wasn’t just a coincidence that the Depression occurred under a president who’s ideals are parroted by every Republican following him: “Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression.” This universal Republican “truth” helped earn Hoover the award of having vast poverty stricken slums named after him. Under Republican guidance or compromise we stand to become one vast sprawling Hooverville.
Do you shove your head that far up your ass for the warmth? His campaign slogans were the Liberal ideas of “Hope” and “Change” not the centrist cries of “Compromise” and “Despair”.
wat
he never was a centrist. During his campaign he acted very liberal. He promised vast sweeping reform, his very slogan was “Change”. Centrists in a time of crisis have never been about change, they’ve been about going under the radar and avoiding anything to make their career look bad. A quote from a book I once read “Just because one person says Black and the other says White doesn’t make grey the truth.”
While I disagree that anything would have been different had Obama pointed out the obvious and called out the Republicans on the tax issue, I think garthbartin is correct in his assessment that Obama ran on a decidedly liberal policy. I mean, that’s why I voted for him.
That said, he has spurred some change since he took office, and although I also think he could fight harder at times (more times than I like, in fact), I’m not willing to call him a liar just because he hasn’t been able to do everything in 2 years. I mean, seriously, anyone who thought that such broad social changes were going to happen overnight, especially with everything else going on as well, is retarded.
EDIT: Although, now that I think about it, it may only be obvious to those with fully functioning brains, which is definitely not the vast majority of Americans nowadays, unfortunately.
However obvious to us it may be, those watching Fox news and other wealthy media stations have no clue. One news channel, I think ABC, claimed the Democrat’s protests against extending Bush tax cuts was an attempt to “Save face” because Obama made the deal behind their backs. It was an act of saving face, just not in the way they thought; the Democrats put up a feeble protest so people wouldn’t realize that they don’t give a shit about all the people standing to suffer from these tax cuts. To hide that their true agenda is to cater to the Republicans’ wishes while PRETENDING to be fighting a losing battle for the people. And by coming out and stating the obvious at adds a lot of strength to protest, even if it was entirely obvious. He is our leader, sworn to protect our country, he should be leading the party and the people in protest.
The thing is, garth, he didn’t really run on a “very liberal” campaign. I’ve found that most people don’t even know what “very liberal” even looks like. The political parties in the United States have shifted so far to the right that centrists now look “far left”.
Also, I don’t agree with your description of centrism. Centrists don’t never promise change or reform. Hell, Obama even stated that he wasn’t even for gay marriage. Sheesh.
this
Centrism: the ideal or the practice of promoting moderate policies that lie between different political extremes.
Liberalism: a broadly-based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature.
Conservatism: Couldn’t find a dictionary definition so I’ll go with one of my own; emphasizes “old” values, claims strict adherence to The Constitution and is strongly against changing the current system of lack of government regulations for corporations.
Simplified:
Right: don’t change
Centrist: between right and left, moderate, compromise
Left: change
So I guess to a certain extent I’m wrong; centrists aren’t about no change at all, they’re about half-assed change. And Gay marriage is of minor importance compared to urgent needs such as health car reform, which Obama promised. Instead he gave us “reform” that INCREASED health care companies stocks and really did nothing. Promising health care reform is a VERY left concept, not centrist in the slightest bit. Promising to close Guantanamo bay is VERY left. Promising reform, in Obama’s words; change, is the very thing that DEFINES the left. Centrist’s don’t promise things, they just take in what other people say and pick the middle ground. When some people say black and others white, they hear this and start saying grey. I’m beginning to think they don’t even have thoughts for themselves other than moderation; they look at each extreme and then scramble for the most moderate, weak, half-effective and half-corrupt compromise.
But I’m finally getting what you are trying to say. The mistake you are making is you define the Democratic party by Obama’s actions, however, Obama is not a true Democrat. He is a moderate Republican if anything. I agree, the current Democratic politicians have shifted far right, but it is to soon to start defining the Democratic party with this particular set of corporate puppets. The Democratic part should be defined by it’s people: a beaten down dying middle class desperate for reform and sick as hell with the rich holding their wealth over them like a sledgehammer over a defenseless bunny.
I expect him to actually fucking try. Anyone still believing this is plugging their ears and closing there eyes while screaming “lalallalalalallalalallalalallalalalalallalalanotlisteninglalalalalalalalalala”.
Look at it this way, garth: Even right wingers in other countries push for universal health care.
What does that say?
Also, left, right or centre doesn’t say anything about how many changes you want to make, it only says something about what kind of changes you want to make.
If the government was either far left or far right already, wouldn’t a centrist make changes to make it more centrist?
Centrism=taking the middle ground, moderation. The Republicans don’t want to change things too much, other than continuing on the path of massive tax breaks for the rich and deregulation of the market. The left want drastic change and reform in the opposite of the Republicans. So someone in between the two would be a compromiser, inhibiting the change the left wants while making only small concessions to the Republicans.
That America has one of the most dysfunctional corrupt governments out of all the first world countries? And when saying left and right I’m speaking solely about America, seeing as it is the topic at hand.