Obama Says Some Voters Are Angry, Bitter »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 6 months ago in NewsIn the midst of an assault from his rivals, a defensive Barack Obama said Friday that many working-class Americans are angry and bitter over economic inequalities and have lost faith in Washingtonââ;¬"and, as a result, vote on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 449
-
0%
aniokly6 months ago
Barak Obama's elitist speech in California to his rich donors is like manna from Heaven for Hillary. She can exploit it into a bigger lead in Pennsylvania. Small town, and Rural people protect the 2nd Amendment, and their right to freedom of religion. They are not embittered. And she is right, we don't need a President that looks down his nose at us. You can expect him to screw up once a week until Labor Day. He is not ready for prime time.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.85 Replies
-
0%
Locky126 months ago
Yeah, because Paris Hilton's money, if taxed, would have gone right to Middle Americans! LOL.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.33 Replies
-
0%
Locky126 months ago
It would be nice to think that. But we both know it would be pi$$ed away another gov't bridge to nowhere.
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Aniokly said:
Sure. Maybe it'll keep Bill and his gaffe's off the front page for a day. (:^D)
She has no lead. They're neck and neck, which is quite a change from the actual lead she held a month ago.
Ani, I live in small town, rural Indiana, not much different than PA, and people here are indeed embittered. Lies about the war, lies about a pol's record ("Look! Snipers! Right behind that seven year old girl!"), tax breaks for unAmerican businesses and the rich. That same bitterness swept Congress away from the spend like a drunken sailor Republicans. And they're deserting Hillary and McCain every day.
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
(continued retort to Aniokly)
And Hill and Bill, who earned $105 million over the past seven years, would see middle America at an equal level? Hardly!
Not a chance. You can, however, expect him to garner more new voters, swelling the ranks of the Democratic majority, as well as greater funds from those same new voters. And you can expect him to gain more endorsements from Democrats who matter, those who, like the new voters, are tired of politics as usual.
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
FTA: "The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians' economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
How is that elitist? Can you compare that to George "I Want A War and I Want It NOW!" Bush, who described a group of multimillionaires, laughingly, as "My base"?
Obama's doing exactly what John McCain **used** to do: he's speaking the plain truth. And it's painful to admit that the majority of Americans vote more often against something than for something, but we do.
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Con't:
Votingly negatively is a very real truth Republican pollsters have been exploiting since the falsely named "Contract with America." It put Bush '43 (nicknamed for his SAT scores, no doubt) in the White House, and allowed a temporary Republican respite in 2004.
FTA: "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," (Hillary) said. "They need a president who stands up for them."
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain, described Obama's comments as "condescending" and "out of touch."
"No, I'm IN touch," (Obama) said. "I know exactly what's going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington."
And instead of apologizing, which is what Clinton's camp prayed for, he stuck to his guns and took his lumps.
Good for you, Barack. Since Stephen Colbert isn't on the ballot in Indiana, you've got my vote.
Reply-
-
-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Thanks for the welcome, BTV.
Been real busy working and writing a lot. Pitched a TV show concept to the History Channel, auditioned for the latest Mole show, and now I'm working on completely rewriting a new kung fu screenplay for a Chinese director, with a three week deadline.
All while balancing three kids, a classroom of fifteen, and trying to keep the groundhogs from completely undercutting the barn's foundation. "Consarned groundhogs" is the term I've heard used at the local feedstore. I think I grasp the translation. (:^D)
Busy, busy...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
>And Hill and Bill, who earned $105 million over the past seven years, would see middle America at an equal level? Hardly!
Isn`t that a little less than what McCain`s in-laws made in interest alone over the same time period?
compare them both to Obama who turned down any law firm in the country to work in downtown Chicago working in under-represented neighborhoods.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest6 months ago
TemplarScribe Said:
"people here are indeed embittered"
"Lies about the war"
"tax breaks for unAmerican businesses
and the rich."
Bla blah balh
So TemplarScribe are you a gun toting bible thumper, blaming all your problems on them dark skinned ferineres?
If yes then Obama is correct as far as your concerned
If no then Obama is wrong.
So TemplarScribe is Obama right or wrong?
BTW that's only true if you live in a small town.
If you live in a city or large town and embittered then your not a gun toting bible thumper racist.
Oh Obama's if your to stupid to understand what I said apology is just digging deeper, kinda like Kerry's "botch joke"
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Injest,
You completely miss the point. Obama's comments illustrate not reality, but the **perceived** reality that motivates many middle-class voters (both urban AND rural). He doesn't need to agree with your insightful (:^D) POV to accurately explain American voter habits.
I doubt that Obama's comments only apply to small towns, and only in PA, otherwise, the Clinton camp wouldn't be posting "Not Bitter" signs in Carolina cities and on Philly street corners.
But for the record, my town's got a smaller population then the four square mile neighborhood near Wrigley Field when I lived in Chicago.
BTW: Another indication of the widespread truth of Obama's comments is the vast grassroots support of those not usually involved in politics. You don't have to be a Bible thumper nor a gun toter to see this country needs **real** change, not **more of the same,** which most voters have proven we expect to get from either Hillary or McCain.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months ago
Correction: Another REPUBLICAN Congress Bridge to Nowhere (Brought to you by criminal Ted Stevens (AK) and the GOP Do Nothing Congress) . Let's not obscure facts.
Reply -
0%
Lurch6 months ago
>It would be nice to think that. But we both know it would be pi$$ed away another gov't bridge to nowhere.
Only if McCain gets elected.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest6 months ago
"Or maybe to Walter Reed so we could actually pay to take care of our soldiers."
When is our DEMOCRAT controlled congress going to finally start spending money where it needs to? The Dems have the house and therefore the countries purse so why won't the Dems pay for Walter Reed?
Reply-
0%
mntnman4446 months ago
The dems have a bill in congress right now...the 21st Century GI Bill...which so far,McCain does not support...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-clark...
Reply-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
Injest, you gotta stop listening to that right-wing mm babble dude. you gotta start paying attention and doing some critical thinking on your own.
it gets painful to watch you and others like you just walk into these self-made traps/gaffes as if you were Dem plants on here trying to make McCain supporters look like out-of-touch dweebs.
Reply-
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Wow! Now THAT'S an interesting take on things, Lurch!
Too bad we can't explain away the last seven years as a brilliant plan by James Carville to blast the Repubs out of the water!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Beau78906 months ago
injest, where is the Democratic Congress going to get the money to PAY for what it needs to? Here, I'll make it multiple choice for you. Should they:
A) Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and perhaps raise taxes;
B) Stop funding the war in Iraq; or
C) Continue to borrow until our government defaults because revenues can't even pay the interest?
Which do you prefer?
Reply-
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
ok, and then you`ll beyatch about the cost of produce and labor at the convenience store and all the while you won`t see a drop in your taxes because the cons you support have already spent that `tax` savings thousands of times over.
when you are ready to talk real, important issues, raise your hand.
Reply-
0%
tanglang6 months ago
My produce comes from a local organic farmer here in Ga. I also buy my meat and eggs from local farmers too. Not to mention that I have my own garden every year. So my produce would not be affected one bit if we gave the boot to the illegals.
What would be affected is the nations economy. We would be employing mor Americans who are currently out of work. There will be more tax paying citizens as opposed to them being on welfare and ss because they lost their jobs to illegals. We would be spending half a trillion less in social services every year. There would be 9125 mericans alive each year that otherwise would have been killed by illegals. Classrooms would be smaller so our children can get a better education. I could go on and on.
This is the most important issue. A record number of Americans think so too. Just look at how our calls shut down the phone systems in DC last summer when this debate was going on.
Reply-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
You know, it would not be difficult to start collecting taxes on the work they do.
Increase penalties for employers who do not pay payroll and other taxes on illegals, and enforce it. No names needed because the workers are seasonal and most will give a different name anyway. Just have inspectors do random head counts. If the employer is paying taxes on a figure close to that number, he is ok. If he is underpaying, he gets fined accordingly.
Would be a compromise to the illegals cost us money claim and it is the only practical solution.
What is your actual plan for rounding up and transporting the illegals out of America while preventing them or others from returning?
And how do you intend to pay for this unfunded program? Raise taxes?
From the salaries of the Americans who replace the illegals in the field? lol with that. There will be no fields or farms in America because no Americans would do those jobs.
Reply-
0%
tanglang6 months ago
We can start by making illegal immigration a felony like Mexico does. Then, after making an example out of a few of them who have committed crimes instead of deporting them like we have in the past, the rest will start to migrate home on their own.
Right now the county I live in deports illegals when they catch them.
The county next to me is in the middle of a law suit with the American Criminal Liars Union because they made it against the law to knowingly rent a home to an illegal. According to the Liars Union that is racist.
The state I live in is in the process of passing a law sponsored by a state rep (who is a family friend) to take cars away from illegals. If they are stopped for dui, or are involved in an accident, their car now belongs to the state.
If we start passing laws like these nationwide, they will deport themselves.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months ago
Maybe when chimper's brigade of GOP flying monkeys stop obstructing, wiping up after him and actually doing what the American public wants. You wingjobs had it all and you look at the giant clusterf*ck you turned our country into. You got NOTHING done except for tax cuts for billionaires. Good job, sparky.
Reply-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
Actually, they also created millions of america-haters and hundreds of thousands of anti-american terrorists. So it is not like all they did was take money from our children to give more handouts to the rich.
Reply -
0%
TemplarScribe6 months ago
Mesodude: "...chimper's brigade of GOP flying monkeys..."
HAH HAH heh heh heh heh -- SPLURT!!
Gotta stop reading Propeller while I'm eating cereal!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
slate6 months ago
they must be gettin skert,,, now they are pulling evry OH YEAH but the Repubs, thing they can come up with,,,, relax guys you've had the election won for four years now,,,, atleast that;s what you keep saying,,,, why so skert?
Reply -
-
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
ah, newsflash Jr.
Price of gas is determined by geographic location in the US more than anything else.
In your world it may be smarter to drive to another geographic region to save 50 cents/gallon, but in the real world that don`t make any sense and people have to pay what the oil oligarchy forces us to pay.
Hence mega-record profits for the oil companies on top of record tax-handouts by the Bush admin, all during a time of war. Unheard of in civil society that a large portion of the population would be so dumb as to not only put up with this situation, but defend it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
>Yeah, because Paris Hilton's money, if taxed, would have gone right to Middle Americans! LOL.
You mean like in paying for her share of the Republican debt so that thousands of middle americans are not forced to pay her share for her?
uh, yes, that is correct. nice to see you are starting to catch on to their scam.
Reply
-
-
0%
MajJohn6 months ago
Smart enough to go with the Democrats, It has been my experience going back to when I worked in the steel mills that these hard workers became Democrats because of the unions. Their blue collar mentality helped to make America great, but they got greedy like the auto workers. As jobs went overseas and plants closed these same workers were not willing to adapt to new economic realities. They remained Democrats and pro-union. Neither the unions or the Democrats have done anything for them. The rust belts are ignored because the residents will always vote Democratic out of a sense of false loyalty. The Republicans & the Democrats have no incentive to do anything for them. Without an active, competitive 2 party system these economically depressed areas will remain poor. So the disenfranchised are bitter and hold on to the non economic issues. Sure, why not? Obama is correct to some degree. These Americans are the forgotten ones. Are they smart? No, abandoned, yes.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions6 months ago
You are actually quite right about that. Obama has been running a campaign on changing that longstanding formula. That's why the entrenched moguls on both sides are out to destroy him.
Do we want to keep right on with the politics of fear and smear and spin mastering and grabbing quotes out of context to distort their meaning. If so, you can choose McCain for the Republican version of this or Clinton for the Democratic version.
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
You`re partially right. Many of the unions have been quite stubborn. They learned that well from management, the same management who gave themselves six-figure bonuses for negotiating money out of the union`s pay.
Look up NUMI for a real-life story of how the union that served the most costly, least productive, lowest quality factory in GM became the most efficient and highest quality factory in America. The union stayed the same. Even the union leaders were brought back. Only thing that changed was the new Japanese mgt bought the factory out and brought in new mgt.
Makes you go, `hmm, I`ve been blaming the wrong people all along`.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate6 months ago
After all, which administration gave Paris Hilton a tax break because she needed the money more than Middle Americans?
I'm a middle american and got a tax break, didn't you?
Reply-
-
-
-
-
0%
crespi6 months ago
You mean like the $200,000,000,000.00 of American taxpayers' money Bush just gave to the richest, most powerful bank in the world, that has been fully implicated in engineering WWI for profit?
Your evil empire is crumbling tang.
You'd better tell your Neocon pals to initiate the "event" that will force America into martial law or Obama may win.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions6 months ago
If everybody gets a 5% tax cut, that means that poor and middle income wage earners get very little. 5% of a taxable income of $20,000 (after deductions) is $1,000. FOr the top income bracket, 5% of a taxable income of $1,000,000 is $50,000. For the hedge fund managers that brought in $650 million on average, their tax cut was $3,250,000.
The small break the middle Americans got was offset by slashing Pell Grants for college education, cutting support to the states for police on the streets and other state subsidies, thus driving up state property taxes. You got NOTHING. The really wealthy got a HUGE bonanza.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions6 months ago
Report Says That the Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
All figures are from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15ri...
Reply-
0%
tanglang6 months ago
So what? If the taxes are raised by 5%, it appears that the rich are getting scewed and the so called poor are not. Either way, everybody is getting the same percentage back so where is the effing problem?
I love how you libs hate the rich but constantly support millionaires for your leadership postions. Do you really think that Edwards, Clinton or BO want to increae their taxes? You guys should also note that right now all the "evil corporations" are giving their money to BO and Clinton. That way if elected their company might get preferential treatment.
Reply-
0%
crespi6 months ago
Tang you poor naive thing.
The people you mentioned are not WEALTHY!
They just have a little money.
The REAL super-wealthy (starting at 10 TIMES RICHER than Edwards) tend to stay out of the light.
There are good posts up naming the 6,0000 people who meet at Davos and secretly divide America and the world like a pie.
YOU are not even NEAR their class.
To THEM you are down here with the minimum wage workers and will be given the same treatment.
YOU THINK YOU ARE SPECIAL?
Your Neocon masters will dump you faster than Ernst Rohm.
Thanks for standing with THEM against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the American people. We'll remember.
The day of reckoning is drawing near. As is yours.
Reply-
0%
mntnman4446 months ago
Awww...leave the poor dude alone,he can't help it...his brain is permanently damaged from all that pot he smoked.
That's the bad thing about making such a stupid choice of smoking the reefer...your brain is permanently damaged and even if you quit,it cannot be reversed and for the rest of your life you have no credibilty.
Reply
-
0%
ETproductions6 months ago
This is NOT about hating the rich. It's about leveling the playing field so we fund government on tax revenue instead of disastrous debt -- $10 trillion and counting.
And it's about setting up a system like virtually all other developed nations have, and like we had until the the RepubliConMen got into power and dismantled it; a system to prevent the concentration of wealth in dynasties.
If we leave the current tax system in place and permanently eliminate the estate tax on super large estates, we are on track to become a banana republic. If that's what you truly hanker for, move to Hatti. Their government already has it in place.
Reply-
0%
amazed6 months ago
Excuse me, but here in CT, my "tax freedom day" is not until sometime towards the end of May. Now, maybe I AM just a greedy so-and-so, but it seems to me, that if I'm the one doing the work, and I'm the taking the risks, then I'm the one who should get the reward -- not be forced to hand over half of it to someone else who has NOT worked for it or taken any risk for it to decide how to spend it.
Reply-
0%
miklkit6 months ago
When that bridge you drive over collapses under you who is going to come to your aid? The police? Nope. Laid off. The firemen? Nope. Laid off. A road repair crew? Nope. Laid off. You want that bridge to stay safe? Maybe you should get out there and repair it yourself. Or pay taxes......
Reply-
0%
tanglang6 months ago
I don't think we are talking about bridges here. We are talking about the hundreds of billions that we waste on bs social services and illegal aliens. Not to mention that the war in Iraq is costing less than the 45 year national average for military spending yet the left says it is "bankrupting" us so we need to further tax the rich.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch6 months ago
that only touches on income taxes.
how about SS, sales, and other regressive taxes? Notice DC never bases tax entitlements on the regressive taxes?
SS tops out at about $95K/year. How about basing `stimulus` tax refunds on that tax?
Every study I have ever read or seen on the subject indicates beyond any doubt that a federal dollar provided/returned to a welfare recipient actually is recycled more and more quickly through the economy than one that is given to the rich or the corporations. The poor spend it quickly and locally more often than the rich or the corporations. The rich have everything they need anyway, at least in America. The corporations take time to plan and implement investments (spending)
Macro economics.
The Bush tax break is nothing more than a handout to himself, his family, and his America-hatin` base.
Reply
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months ago
Lots of middle class Americans got "tax breaks"--which were more than offset by huge spikes in their food, fuel, healthcare, childcare, education, and housing costs. So, technically they DIDN'T get a tax break. Make sense, slater?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tanglang6 months ago
Well so far they were the only two major candidates who have not been caught in lies, so if you do not want to vote for a liar, then you must be supporting them. BO has been caught in more lies than anybody ever to run for office yet people still believe that *he brings them hope, that he can bring about a culture of change, and lead this nation in a better direction*. Even though that is obviously bull-S.
Reply-
0%
splitrch6 months ago
As for Ron Paul, I agree. He says the same thing all the time. I just don't agree with all of what he says. Huckabee changed his tune depending on his audience. I saw him rev up the faithful in S. Carolina with his bible thumping and the next week sound like a wonky liberal intellectual at the Republican Debate at the Reagan Library. Don't get me wrong; THAT Mike Huckabee was more to my liking. I just don't know which one would show up if elected. Based on his track record it would more likely have been the wonky liberal intellectual. I know you liked Huckabee but your party rejected him.
BTW, Dennis Kucinich didn't change his tune either.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jordan116 months ago
He wasn't being elitist at all. It's a fact that given certain circumstances, such as a long economic downturn, people can become bitter & put their negativity onto other things. No one likes to think they would do that, & that's where his error was, in verbalizing it. We aren't electing 'gods' to public office Ani, & it's ridiculous to judge the whole man on this.
Reply-
-
0%
splitrch6 months ago
2 weeks ago a nice (so I thought) lady knocked on my door. She wanted me to sign a petition to place on the Nov. ballot in CA a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. I wonder if she really understood the nature of her efforts: to get as many hateful people to the polls to scapegoat gays and lesbians; and while there also vote for repugs. I told her no I wouldn't sign it. She was very distressed and told me they just wanted to qualify for the ballot. We don't need an amendment to define that which
-
-
