Rubicon seems to think that "Populism" is a bad thing. It is defined as:

" It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship. This is in opposition to statism, which holds that a small group of professional politicians know better than the people of a state and should make decisions on behalf of them."

Personally, I am in favor of populism. Sure seems better than the other choice.

when making such choices it should not be between populist or statists...very often a real leader has to take a position that is not popular for the masses or the politicians.

Real tried and true leaders are very often not very popular. They do what has to be done...NO MATTER WHAT... the end result is usually the proof in the making.

Leaders usually have more information at their disposal than all others and there are times when he/she cannot share certain information to make what they do or did more palitable to the masses.

Politicians by nature are unable to make risk involved decisions to do what ever it takes....mainly because it conflicts with one the ability and capability and most certainly could affect their re-election.

It is one thing to lead by having the appropriate staffing to cover one's weaknesses or compliment their strengths. Politicians like Obama and far too many before him only have staff as rewards to owed individuals, hence there is no covering of weaknesses and certainly no strengths to match.
Hence, like Obama (and those before him) they tend to sit on the sidelines and see which way sentiment is blowing before taking a position. Many like Obama take no position at all like he did when in the senate by voting "present" on select controversial issues.

I will take a real leader each and every time one is available. There is a reason why they are not found in politics...they too cannot stomach mediocrity and non performance!!!

btk

By the citizens who have money.

The initial post was spot-on correct. We've been snookered again. The Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--passed legislation that supposedly paid for the temporary cessation of the payroll taxes to pay for Social Security by levying additional fees on borrowers using Freddie or Fannie mortgage guarantees. And a fairly hefty fee at that.

Why Richie blames this on President Obama baffles me--other than Richie's obvious deep hatred for the man. Other than signing the bill created by the Congress, the President had little to do with its contents. He prescribed an objective that the payroll tax holiday be extended. The bill met his objective. Because the Congress didn't come up with real spending cuts to pay for it isn't Obama's fault.

The "solution" Congress came up with is not a "tax" according to the Republicans and presumably Grover Norquist. But it's money out of some, not all, American's pockets for sure.

But I guess that's better than simply forgiving the taxes needed to pay for Social Security and just borrowing it from China.

So, BTK, you have stated you do not like how Pres. Obama is performing his job as President. You also stated that no real leaders can be found in politics.

I would like to know who, in your opinion, was the last real leader of the USA? Did we ever have one - since you have stated no real leaders can be found in politics?

If there are no real leaders available through the political workings, do we just vote "None of the above" and let the choice be made by someone else while we can just say over the next term that we did not vote for that candidate? Not my style to do that, though.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The initial post was spot-on correct. We've been snookered again. The Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--passed legislation that supposedly paid for the temporary cessation of the payroll taxes to pay for Social Security by levying additional fees on borrowers using Freddie or Fannie mortgage guarantees. And a fairly hefty fee at that.

Why Richie blames this on President Obama baffles me--other than Richie's obvious deep hatred for the man. Other than signing the bill created by the Congress, the President had little to do with its contents. He prescribed an objective that the payroll tax holiday be extended. The bill met his objective. Because the Congress didn't come up with real spending cuts to pay for it isn't Obama's fault.

The "solution" Congress came up with is not a "tax" according to the Republicans and presumably Grover Norquist. But it's money out of some, not all, American's pockets for sure.

But I guess that's better than simply forgiving the taxes needed to pay for Social Security and just borrowing it from China.

As a working man, I feel that both parties of the Congress and the President were playing politics with this. The payroll tax holiday doesn't amount to much in a check but the long term damage to SS could be severe. Turn them all out.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

I think it is fair to say that it is an extravagant expense on the taxpayers in these hard times. I hear Camp David is lovely this time of years.

Again the family is paying for their stay.

Originally Posted by cologal

Again the family is paying for their stay.

Again, the taxpayer is paying for the flight and dog and pony show that goes with it. Four million dollars worth.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Again, the taxpayer is paying for the flight and dog and pony show that goes with it. Four million dollars worth.

That's one of the many perks of the job, something republicans won't know anything about anytime soon.

Originally Posted by janmcn

That's one of the many perks of the job, something republicans won't know anything about anytime soon.

I think it is taking advantage of the job. We give him a perfectly good house to live in, it's staffed well. We also provide him a getaway home in the Mountains of Maryland. This also has staff, cooks and Secret Service details. Either party has had Presidents that preferred to spend more on travel. You want to let them **** the money away, fine. I'm against it.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The initial post was spot-on correct. We've been snookered again. The Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--passed legislation that supposedly paid for the temporary cessation of the payroll taxes to pay for Social Security by levying additional fees on borrowers using Freddie or Fannie mortgage guarantees. And a fairly hefty fee at that.

Why Richie blames this on President Obama baffles me--other than Richie's obvious deep hatred for the man. Other than signing the bill created by the Congress, the President had little to do with its contents. He prescribed an objective that the payroll tax holiday be extended. The bill met his objective. Because the Congress didn't come up with real spending cuts to pay for it isn't Obama's fault.

The "solution" Congress came up with is not a "tax" according to the Republicans and presumably Grover Norquist. But it's money out of some, not all, American's pockets for sure.

But I guess that's better than simply forgiving the taxes needed to pay for Social Security and just borrowing it from China.

I always thought that though you are much misguided that your posts usually held a grasp for the issues and a certain honesty. But, you've got a lot of nerve. Show me where in this thread that I blamed the President for this Bill.

I pointed to the blind love of liberals on this forum for this failed President, who Bush-slap, and I opined on his irreverent use of the taxpayers money so that his family doesn't miss a couple of days in the sun. I lambasted this whole phony crisis over this "payroll tax cut", but that's it.

If you have any real integrity you owe me an apology.

Nope, I don't think an apology is justified. The original posting discussed how Congress and the administration snookered us again by saying one thing (no new taxes) and doing another (passing a temporary tax holiday paid for with permanent and substantial fees which will do nothing but further dampen an already moribund housing industry). It was you who brought blame for the POTUS and all liberals into the conversation, when clearly there is blame to be assigned to all parties in this situation.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...Fees that will be permanent to pay for a temporary tax cut, and liberal kool-aid drinkers refuse to see past their all consuming love for this failed President to acknowledge even the slightest doubt as to this new plans...

$17 a month for fees on a mortgage is a terrible thing? I would think it beats a $40 a week loss in the paycheck.

Anyhow, how much in fees did Newt get from Freddie Mac for his "work"? He received around $1.5 million. That makes a lot less sense than a payroll tax cut.

I actually enjoyed reading Ann Coulter's rantings today as she ragged on Newt. I guess he really is a sniveling adulterous weasel - as confirmed by Ann Coulter. Newt had just better drop out of the campaign now and sign all of his votes over to Mitten the Kitten.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I always thought that though you are much misguided that your posts usually held a grasp for the issues and a certain honesty. But, you've got a lot of nerve. Show me where in this thread that I blamed the President for this Bill.

I pointed to the blind love of liberals on this forum for this failed President, who Bush-slap, and I opined on his irreverent use of the taxpayers money so that his family doesn't miss a couple of days in the sun. I lambasted this whole phony crisis over this "payroll tax cut", but that's it.

If you have any real integrity you owe me an apology.

Really?! Sounds like Deity Complex to me. Happy Birthday Richie? Kahuna, be very careful. Richie has spoken!

Do you think the $40 per check will last more than a year? The $17 a month has no end date.