home

Wednesday Evening Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:09:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Barry Bonds Convicted of Obstruction, Jury Hangs on False Statement Counts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Evening Open Thread | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    mks, about fdr and (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    Obama. Obama said that fdr waited  6 mos so that it would be easier to get action approved. This is unambiguously a charge against fdr. Your context only shows that obama was ignorant or bsing. Obama repeats many conservative myths. Most likely that is what happened here
    Obama refuses to (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:43:53 PM EST
    Criticize reaganomics directly. That is a big problem for me
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    what's with that. We already know they're called supply side voodoo economics. Why can't he say it.

    Parent
    Reagan in recent (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    years has become untouchable at least in direct terms. Deemed politically unwise to call him out. So you get, "some bad things happened in the 80s", but rarely do you hear even a Dem pol link it by name to St Ronnie.

    Softie Dems and Obama of course have been part of the reason Reagan gets a pass.  Our side has too often played the role of enablers, or at least our leaders have.

    Meanwhile, FDR, as evidenced by curiously conservative comments by O about the '32-3 transition cited today, seems to be fair game to criticize even if it's an obviously poor reading of presidential politics and economics.  

    Hard to tell if that was the Republican in Obama speaking or the too eager-to-make-a-deal bipartisan Compromiser in Chief coming to the fore or just the rather undiscriminating reader of history whose views shift significantly depending on the last book he's read.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:14:41 AM EST
    I think you can attack supply side economics without even mentioning Reagan.

    Parent
    Reagan myth making (none / 0) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    Was helped by the Clinton administration. Carter was treated as a loser by many in the Clinton administration.Goldwater lost big but Republicans always treated him as a hero,   .  

    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    "But, but, BUT .... CLINTON!!!"

    Name one myth about Carter affirmed by Clinton, as Obama did with this FDR myth.

    Parent

    Huh ... guess you just made it up (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    Who'da thunk?

    Parent
    He really can't suddenly (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    start saying it now.  It would only sound like over-the-top partisan campaign speech, inflame a lot of people in the GOP congress and honestly wouldn't have a lick of intellectual or ideological credibility.

    This is the big problem with Obama's whole approach and... (I'm grinding my teeth to keep from pointing out it's precisely what so many of us were warning about during the primaries)

    It's too late for him to do any thorough-going critiques of Reagan et al because it would just sound harsh and wildly partisan suddenly popping up now.  He needed to start making the case in the general election and carry that case through from day one as Pres.

    As we know, he didn't wanna do that, so here we are.

    The speech today is the best we're going to get out of him on that score, so enjoy it while it lasts.


    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:16:53 AM EST
    It's the box Obama has willingly put himself in.

    Parent
    Anybody besides me remember it was (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:55:56 PM EST
    George H.W. who coined the term "voodoo economics" for Reagan's ideas?

    Parent
    H.W. sold his soul (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:13:08 PM EST
    to get that position of power. At least, that's the strong implication of what Gerald Ford said about him.

    Parent
    He certainly did, or at least (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    whatever soul he ever had.

    Wayyy back when, the GOP was split between the Reagan and Bush camps, which had zero use for each other.  Bush's camp was the relatively moderate and very elite GOP group in opposition to the radical insanity of Reagan.

    And then Bush just caved and the opposition he was the figurehead for dissolved entirely, and Bush ultimately teamed up with Lee Atwater to slime his way into the White House for one term.

    I have zero respect for the man.

    Parent

    H.W. always seemed uncomfortable (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:15:12 AM EST
    when he had to parrot the fundamentalist party line. It was readily obvious that he didn't believe a word of it. I think his legacy rests on whether or not David Souter was an accident. (Clarence Thomas was intentional).

    Mitt Romney also doesn't believe what he says, but you'd never know by listening to him. I think that makes him creepier.

    Parent

    I don't know if (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    Souter came as a surprise to Poppy, but his naming both a moderate and a RWer to the Ct is almost consistent with HW's political career, which often swung wildly from moderate to hard right and back again.  

    Came from a family whose father, the CT senator, was mostly moderate, but ran his first race in TX for the senate as a Goldwater Lite conservative (not quite winning).  Then re-emerges a couple of yrs later running as a moderate for the House.  Runs for prez in 1980 repping the moderate wing, then does an immediate 180 on abortion and voodoo economics in order to fit the proper hard right profile of the ticket. His presidency was a mix of the same far right and moderate impulses.

    I don't think Poppy ever resolved the inner tension between the two ideologies or the conflict over whether to follow in his father's footsteps or carve out a different political philosophy.

    Romney is very much like Poppy in shifting frequently from moderate to conservative and back according to political necessity, only slicker and smoother, in a snake oil salesman's way, in explaining the sudden backflipping.  I think the Mittster's political gymnastics are far more opportunistic and insincere while HW may have genuinely been buffeted about at times by his inner uncertainties.

    Parent

    Agree with this (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    and I have to say, having to deal with GWBush's behavior as president is a very nice penalty for GHWBush's sins in this life.

    Parent
    and he was the one (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    who was elected to a second term.  That's gotta hurt.

    Parent
    And Paul Ryan is (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    little Eddie Munster, all growed up but still with the same haircut.

    I think that we're on to something here.  We could populate a terrible but campy-funny throwback flick or tv series with this case of characters -- and making America laugh at them could be a way to win.

    Parent

    For whatever reason, Rand Paul reminds (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 06:24:54 AM EST
    me of the puppet, Howdy Dowdy. Not exactly a nice Howdy though.

    Parent
    Cousin It!!! (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    That's absolutely perfect!

    Parent
    I don't remember (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:18:58 AM EST
    Bush Sr. saying that but I do remember one of the best lines from the '92 campaign "Bush criticized supply side economics calling them voodoo economics and now he has become their practioner."

    Parent
    McChrystal to chair commission on (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    military families? Seems an odd choice based on his treatment of Pat Tillman's family.  Maybe it is his chance to make up for that by helping these families.

    For sj... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    An old open thread filled up....

    I poked around and Mother Jones was deemed the most dangerous woman in America before Emma Goldman was deemed the most dangerous woman in America...I'm ashamed I know little of Mother Jones' good work.  

    Thanks for setting me straight and hooking me up with a new girlfriend:)

    You are surely welcome, my friend (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    She was a firebrand and half, wasn't she?  But we both need to thank lambert for the link to the audio book.

    Parent
    PPP (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    says Obama is in bad shape in PA. It seems the problems from the primary are rearing their head
    link

    But it's 18 months out, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    so it's about current attitudes. And you know I'm not a cheerleader :-)


    Parent
    money graf (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    Those numbers suggest that a lot of the voters who fueled Hillary Clinton's primary victory in the state and then sucked it up and voted for Obama in the general election the last time around haven't been real thrilled with what they've seen from him so far and could split their tickets next year - if the Republicans put up someone who's seen as a reasonable alternative.

    tho it ignores the possibility that some of the Demos who did not vote for O in the primary will simply not cast a vote for president next year - of course it's all speculation at this point

    Parent

    let's see what happens (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    in the economy in PA, hasn't it been hit hard? In Alabama, there's been devastation.

    But those blue-collar workers, they probably won't vote again for Obama unless something changes.

    All the more reason for someone, I'd love a Gephart Democrat to do so, to primary the richest guy on the block. First, issues. Second, issues. And third, issues.

    Parent

    Remember what James (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:39:25 PM EST
    Carville said about Pennsylvania:  "It's Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between."

    Parent
    It's often given in a different form (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    "Between Paoli and Penn Hills, Pennsylvania is Alabama without the blacks."

    Parent
    Philadelphia (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:55:46 PM EST
    Also remember that if a Gephardt Democrat cannot draw a very strong AA vote (around 95%) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will be lost to Democrats. Gephardt Democrats will also never win votes from Philadelphia suburbs that Kerry and Obama won.

    Parent
    If we're going to take the House (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:19:16 PM EST
    there are key seats in the Philly suburbs that we must win back.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:05:21 PM EST
    but Alabama has been voting for plantation economics for 40 or 50 years now. They'll vote for people who espouse the same Wall Street philosophy Obama does.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    the money graf there could explain a lot of Obama's problems. He's not doing well with those voters across the nation.

    Parent
    I agree. Hillary promised the working class (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:22:28 PM EST
    that they were not nameless to her.  To O however, the working class is not a high priority. So I don't think O can count on them unless he does what he says as in today's speech.  Otherwise he will have a hard time keeping Ohio,Pa and Indiana.

    Parent
    Inconsistent with a lot of other polling (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    Including polling from PPP itself. It could be right, but I'd wait for confirmation.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    I was just throwing it out there. Anyway, I think one is more wrong than the polling on NC and VA is right.

    Parent
    Internals Aren't that Bad for Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:58:48 PM EST
    If you look at the head to head matchups with the individual GOP candidates, the reason why Obama isn't doing as well is because black voters aren't supporting him as heavily in the poll.  But in real life, I'm certain Penn black voters will vote for him 95% just like they did in 2008 (see CNN exit poll).  If Obama can get 42+ % of white voters, I expect Obama would win Pennsylvania, and I think he can do that because even John Kerry could do that.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:09:25 PM EST
    The Republicans are in the position of having to consolidate white voters in a way that they've basically never done in a Presidential election. Tricky proposition.

    Parent
    Redistricting (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:00:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Can only do so much (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:43:15 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    he'll get 95% this time but I'm willing to bet he gets 90%. He'll be lucky to get 42% of the white vote simply because there's so many working class whites in PA. Kerry had the benefit of having a wife who was well liked in PA which helped him.

    Parent
    The problem isn't whether he gets (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:52:29 AM EST
    95%, or 90%. He could get 99%, but if only 6 AA's get off the couch and drag themselves to the booths percentages don't mean a whole lot.

    It's the ole "figures lie, and liars figure" meme.

    He's got get that ole belly fire going.

    Parent

    Take a look at recent demographic map (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:06:38 PM EST
    @National Journal.  Key point for most significant states (and beyond) is that the ongoing demographic changes in the US will mean that Obama should need less than the 42% in PA as well as a lower number of percentage whites in other states to win at the level he won in 2008. (Trans: In and of itself, the situation for the President is better than a number of doubters would think.)

    Parent
    And, as for "working class whites" (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:08:32 PM EST
    Consider the effect of the Republican tie to virulent anti-unionism in the midwest this year. (PA is not that far away; and, it is a strong union state.)

    Parent
    So does that mean Obama (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:21:33 PM EST
    will suddenly embrace his inner union worker?

    Parent
    So far all his shoes pinch his feet ;-) (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:33:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:22:31 AM EST
    but Obama has largely stood on the sidelines of that. So while it might help him indirectly, it also might not make a difference for him.

    Parent
    Barry Bonds jury hangs on all but one count (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    and guilty of obstruction for a single evasive statement (out of seven charged) to the grand jury.

    just wrote a long post on it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:08:07 PM EST
    and linked to the documents here.

    Parent
    Obama Speech (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    Thought it was a campaign speech.

    Low on details and high on partisanship.

    No reason to even discuss the details of it no matter how few there where.

    The point of this speech was to let the left know or to present the idea that he was going to fight republicans (namely Ryan) on their budget plan.

    One point that should be made is Ryan's plan does not advocate tax cuts for the rich.  I think Obama was very misguided making that point repeatedly.

    Ryans plan calls for a revision of the tax code, as Obama's own commission calls for.

    He made it seem as if Ryan was for tax cuts for the rich when his plan really didn't deal with that.  

    In the end does it matter?  no.  

    What this speech told us is there will be no real budget cutting until after 2012.  

    Obama thinks he has a campaign issue, status quo, and Republicans think they have one.

    With the two parties so far apart nothing will get done until after the election.

    However the fact that Obama even felt compeled to give this speech shows IMHO he's losing the debate.

    Considering the notion the country is broke... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    ...is a complete lie, I'd say the speech was, ultimately, bullsh*t.  But at least it was a lot of bullsh*t I agree with.

    Link to latest example of how we know the country isn't close to being broke, but is just being stolen.

    Parent
    Not sure how your link (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:35:24 AM EST
    proves the country isn't broke.

    Your link just proves that there was a bipartisan effort to make the country more broke.

    News flash, our government hands out favors to the lobbyists and elites with most influence.  Shocker.

    If the government didn't have so much power and influence in the first place this wouldn't happen.

    That article was great other then the unnecessary shots at Republicans.  

    Parent

    The truth about (none / 0) (#57)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 08:54:40 AM EST
    Republican tax cuts.

    Click or cab drollery Me

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    if I should thank you for that link or not.

    Parent
    Biden not impressed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:02:31 PM EST
    With Obama speech

    Parent
    I didn't realize that was a Repub talking point! (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:10:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:48:22 PM EST
    Heard it higlighted on Fox numerous times this evening. (It was a superb speech and they're really grasping at straws to try to counter it, but they'll get their bearings again in a day or two, IMO.)

    Parent
    Just poking fun (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:30:20 AM EST
    For you to claim that speech was "superb" is mind blowing.

    I guess if you like partisan political speeches and don't believe the country is facing fiscal disaster then yes, that was a superb speech.

    Parent

    Here's (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:52:27 AM EST
    the thing that annoys me: George W. Bush pretty much destroyed the fiscal sanity of the country and the GOP sat around and did nothing but talk about how he was the Son of God sent to earth to save us from the heathens.

    There are a lot of places that we are really wasting money like in Iraq but the GOP REFUSES to end their belief in that insanity that is causing huge holes in the budget. Until the GOP is willing to start dealing honestly and quit saying that the middle class has to take the brunt of the cuts while the wealthy in this country should never suffer by paying one more penny, then you really just can't deal with the problem. The reason there weren't more cuts was because Obama agreed to INCREASE military spending in the deal that he cut with the GOP.

    Parent

    What's wrong with partisan speeches? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:46:26 AM EST
    All 'partisan' means is that you believe in something - something different than the other side. One would hope so actually....

    And Obama did acknowledge fiscal problems; he just differs in how to solve them - i.e., not on the backs of the poor, middle class, and seniors.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:50:40 AM EST
    What he want to do won't work.

    Other then that it was just partisan talking points.

    I guess I expect the President of the United States not to waste our time with campaign speeches 18 months before his next election.

    Maybe if he hadn't punted on tax cuts, punted on Simpson/Bowles, punted on his budget I'd take him seriously.

    But we can all agree until including yesterday he's been all talk and no action.  And what action he has taken has been a bipartisan mess.

    Bottom line.  What little details he did lay out won't solve our issue.   So you're left to wonder.   Does he even think there is one?  If not then why pretend?

    Parent

    Your link doesn't demonstrate it won't work (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:54:05 AM EST
    It simply doesn't like the plan to tax the rich.

    And history shows us that what repubs are advocating is the opposite of a solution.

    Parent

    Actually, no (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    I don't believe "the country is facing fiscal disaster."  As numerous people have been pointing out repeatedly for months, something like 40 percent of the debt can be taken care of by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  And I for one have zero problem with the federal government carrying a deficit.

    Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it was a speech, not a plan.  As a speech, it was superb.  As usual, Obama's not going to put out a full-blown plan, he's going to leave it up to Congress.

    I don't like that way of operating, but that's what Obama does.  I've said repeatedly in this thread and others that what he actually does and agrees to is a whole other matter and I don't trust him to follow through on the principles he laid out in the speech.

    But the speech, as a speech, was superb.  If he'd been giving this sort of speech from day one, we'd be in a lot different position than we are today, IMO.


    Parent

    Clive Crook (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:45:14 AM EST
    Say speech was not so superb

    Parent
    The columnist (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 05:54:29 AM EST
    for the National Journal didn't like it? No surprise there.

    Parent
    So partisan (none / 0) (#54)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    to suggest that the Bush tax cuts don't add to the greatness of this country.

    Parent
    Just ran across this: (none / 0) (#23)
    by dead dancer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    Lawmakers, police seek guidance after pot laws quashed

    Now we start (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 06:45:57 AM EST
    Three Republican senators on Wednesday will propose a Social Security reform package that would raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits for the wealthy.

    Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah) previewed their proposal on Fox News, saying that it will put the entitlement program on a long-term path to solvency without raising taxes. link

    It affects people 56 or older rather than 55. It is phased in sooner than the Cat Food Commissions plan. People born in 1970 would become the first group to have a retirement age of 70. The early retirement age would also go from 62 to 64 by 2032.

    While millionaires and billionaires are to poor to pay more taxes, when it comes to cutting benefits for SS, IMO the wealthy will begin somewhere between $25 - $35 thousand.

    Soon it will be time for the Gang of Six to offer the Cat Food Commissions recommendations for cuts to SS benefits as a better, more bi-partisan alternative.

    All cuts to SS benefits will be spun as "fixing" the program and definitely not as slashing benefits.  

    To be clear, it affects people (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    56 or younger; those over age 56 would NOT be affected.

    I still don't know why the wage ceiling could not be raised - it has yet to be explained to me why someone making more than $106,800 should get an automatic raise once that amount is reached - lifting the cap would make all these "problems" go away.

    Parent

    Yes, I would much prefer changing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:11:01 AM EST
    the wage ceiling rather than tinkering with the ages.

    Parent
    I'll add...that will not be discussed (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    in any Republican plan, since it is pretty clearly a tax increase on some folks.

    Parent
    Thanks for making that correction (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    for me. Should know better than to comment before I have ample doses of caffeine.

    Raising the early retirement age to 64 would really be a hardship to a lot of people who have done manual labor all of their lives. Most bodies wears out sooner than that from hard manual labor.

    Also, as I said in my original comment, I expect them to start means testing and lowering benefits at a very low dollar amount.    

    Parent

    Pulling the rug out (none / 0) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 08:34:27 AM EST
    If they want to raise the age, then it should begin with those that are 25 or younger now.

    At 55 you have already contibuted 30 years or more into the program and your retirement path is pretty well set. Pulling the rug out from everyone at that stage is totally unacceptable.

    Parent

    I don't see the logic here at all (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    If they want to raise the age, then it should begin with those that are 25 or younger now.

    At 55 you have already contibuted 30 years or more into the program and your retirement path is pretty well set. Pulling the rug out from everyone at that stage is totally unacceptable.

    People who are 25 now will someday be 55 and will have contributed to 30 years or more into the program.

    I agree that pulling the rug out from everyone at that stage is unacceptable.  But I really mean every one -- those who are 55 now and those who will someday become 55.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    I'm not in favor of touching it at all. But if the powers that be do this, I think it should be implemented at those beginning the work cycle rather than people that are at the finishing line.

    I also believe that this is a perilous journey for any politician to take. The backlash will be dramatic. (Everyone wants lower taxes until it hits home. There are probably as many middle class Republicans on S.S. and Medicare as there are Democrats.

    This might be an interesting time for a third party to gain footing.

    Parent

    I do think this is an interesting (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    thought.

    This might be an interesting time for a third party to gain footing.

    The Republican party was only a few years old when Lincoln was elected.  

    New parties are created all the time.  And they get on the ballot.  As near as I can tell the "two party" system is more effective marketing and D/R protectionism.  "Say it's so" and "act as if".  

    It's a matter of threshold, isn't it? The matching funds thing?  

    I need to do more research and I don't really have time these days...

    Parent

    Much as I would like to see (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    additional parties (I think having to build coalitions is a good thing for democracy) I mentioned the other day, and solicit responses here, that putting together a party comprised of disillusioned members of both the republican and democratic parties is a possibility. The institutions and protocols are already in place, and I believe their are enough people of somewhat good faith hiding in both parties.

    It just feels right, and I think the public would agree; they've had enough of the crazies, the corrupt, the cronies, the inept, the timid. In other words, show them what real bipartisanship would look like.

    Parent

    While there is merit (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    to what you say, I'm not of a mind to pre-compromise these days.  I'd rather two new parties:  One that represents old school democrats and one that represents old school republicans.

    Like it was back in the day, in the 20th century, when corruption was honest, old-school corruption of the individual.  Not corruption of the State.

    Parent

    As a 26 year old (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    I like this plan!

    Parent
    The retirement age of 65 (none / 0) (#68)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    already has been gone for most, if not all, boomers -- the adjustment was made to 66, 67, etc., some time ago, correct?  (I was born in the peak year of the baby boom and cannot collect full Social Security until almost age 67.)  So what is that full-collect age now for those who are 56 now?  I will have to try to find that and see how much of a difference this new plan would make, but I am betting that this is how the Repubs will push this plan, saying that it's not new but just another adjustment.  And that there will be a chart showing that the adjustment is a matter of x months, counting on some of the younger sorts to not be able to imagine being that old, anyway -- or still able to imagine being rich by then to be able to retire early, anyway.

    Parent
    I think it's more (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    counting on us to feel like we'll live forever and 70 is still young.

    Modern medicine and all that.

    Parent

    BHO Speech (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    Well liked by a Republican (based on registration but who  considers himself an Independent now ) that I know who voted for the President in 2008. President should continue to talk like this, shake hands with Republicans using one hand and carry Teddy Roosevelts big stick in the other.Should not backslide from what he said yesterday with his actions. If he keeps this up he will be fine in 2012. IMHO.

    Totally depends on the economy (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TJBuff on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    He's got zero margin on that right now.

    Parent
    While a lot of people have been (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    cheering the Democratic themes sounded in the speech, I think it's possible they have, once again, allowed words to obscure where this plan really falls on the political spectrum, and what that could mean.

    Here's Glenn, with something of a reality check:

    As I noted, most liberals, at least that I've heard, had a quite favorable response to Obama's speech, chief among them (as the above links show) Paul Krugman.  Yet by the end of the day, Krugman was quoting Bob Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who argued that Obama's "plan is a rather conservative one, significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan" and that it "could produce an outcome that is well to the right of the already centrist-to-moderately-conservative Obama proposal."  Krugman himself added that "it's a center-right plan already; if it's the starting point for negotiations that move the solution toward lower taxes for the rich and even harsher cuts for the poor, just say no."

    That highlights two key points.  One is that the expectation level of liberals is now so low that they cheer for a pretty speech that introduces a "rather conservative, center-right plan" -- one that is almost certainly the mere starting point that will lead to a still more rightward economic policy.  And the second is that Obama always has been able to deliver nice speeches, especially ones that trigger the desired response among progressives; the test for Obama is what he does, not what he says in a single speech.

    Put the center-right nature of the starting point with the likelihood that it isn't the ending point, and that it's almost certainly not going to move to the left, and I am worried about just how far to the right it's going to move.


    Parent

    Yup. I agree with Krugman's conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    I should probably say, I could live with this as an end result. If this becomes the left pole, and the center is halfway between this and Ryan, then no -- better to pursue the zero option of just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts as a whole expire.


    Parent
    I agree - that is more the type (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    of attitude and talk I have wanted all along. Backed up with actions of course...we'll see about that.

    Parent
    Digby (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    has a few posts from yesterday on the deficit that are good, but I thought this one was especially good.  Digby on the President's speech:

    The devil is in the details, of course, and this is an opening bid in the coming negotiations. His plan, as enunciated today, will not be the one that's enacted, I think we know that much. As I said, Obama has defined the leftward rhetorical pole of the debate and all negotiations will undoubtedly lead to the right. So it looks to me as if the sweet spot, if there is one, will be found --- again following the Health Care strategy --- in the Senate. And they are quite far along on creating a "balanced" bipartisan plan that he will probably find acceptable as the middle ground between his "liberal" vision and the House Ryan trainwreck.

    I don't know if it's inevitable that the President should define the most polarized position, but in this case it's happening.  Rhetorically he enjoys saying "you have Democrats over here, and Republicans over here" as though he occupied the middle, but he always ends up taking a position that is interpreted as the left-most possible position.  It never actually is the left-most position, but it is presented as such because he presents anything to the left of what he says as impossible.  Although then again, the House and Senate Dems generally never stand behind more liberal proposals than the ones he makes.

    Maybe it's just a function of Pelosi not being around anymore.  But if the President has no-one on the left to compromise with, we're in trouble.  Because he is going to compromise.

    how do you know you are winning the messaging war? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    When the day after Obama says the coveted tax cuts should be eliminated and Foxnewsdotcom the next day leads with "Tower Troubles".....

    Ha! and another way to calibrate your BS meter (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    is to note that none of the usual hand-wringing business groups are concern trolling about how much the markets and businesses hate uncertainty over the GOP plans to let the debt ceiling get exceeded in May, and then start negotiating about raising it.

    Parent
    Wednesday Evening Open Thread | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment