home

Breaking! GOP Only Cares About Tax Cuts For The Rich!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:43:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For some reason, in December no one wanted to point this out. Today, Yglesias writes:

A movement that actually believed that reducing federal spending was extremely important would, it seems to me, be quite willing to make concessions in order to obtain large quantities of spending cuts. Viewed in that light, it’s not obvious to me that backing away from a $4 trillion deal primarily composed of spending cuts constitutes a “more conservative” option than saying yes. [. . . T]he GOP agenda consisted of aggressive tax cutting made palatable by refusing to pair the cuts with spending reductions. [. . . T]he [GOP] bargaining strategy is entirely built around a tax-focused goal rather than a spending-focused one.

No sh*t Sherlock. That is why giving away the store on the Bush tax cuts in The Deal in December was a terrible mistake. The GOP has what it wants. Does it want to cut spending? Sure. But NEVER EVER at the cost of raising taxes. If you give them what they want on taxes, you will never ever get a concession from them. So now Obama will reach a 2 trillion dollar spending cut deal to raise the debt ceiling, an unprecedented capitulation. No President has ever bargained with regard to the debt ceiling. And some will call this a triumph for Obama. An anti-stimulus plan a triumph for a President seeking reelection. There is only one word to describe this analysis- idiotic.

Speaking for me only

< Dog Bites Man: Boehner Balks At Revenue Increases | Obama's 2011 Southwest Border Drug War Policy Released >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Breaking! GOP Only Cares About Tax Cuts For The Rich! | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cop out (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:53:00 AM EST
    The Bush tax cuts expired without legislative action.

    Try another excuse for the disaster that was The Deal.

    The UI extension, the START treaty (none / 0) (#4)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    and DADT.  Rinse and repeat.

    Parent
    That was a plausible argument (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    then. At least UI and DADT was. START treaty is BS.

    Now it is not. UI will be gone now. DADT would have been gone by Executive action.

    Parent

    Slightly more plausible (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    when the debt ceiling was included in the Deal.  This is nothing but a stupid manufactured crisis.

    Parent
    UI would have been extended (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    just like every previous time in the past two years. There is no way Republicans would have willingly gone home to their districts at Christmas-time to face the wrath of their own unemployed constituents. The deal was an unnecessary disaster all the way around.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Left of the Left on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    You work and fight for legislation to cut the middle class taxes after they've gone up for everyone, you still have the Senate under control. Then the republicans would be blocking middle class cuts because they dont include the rich-who should win the PR in that argument? Even the Dems cant screw that one up.

    But that still isnt even the biggest screw up on the taxes, that was allowing them to sunset to begin with, rather than repeal and cut the middles taxes when you controlled congress. And why? In order to avoid being branded as a tax raiser-WHICH HES SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO DO NOW ANYWAY!

    How will a Republican congress do away with the tax cuts when a Democratic one wouldn't?

    Parent

    That's crap (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    The Republican leadership of both the Senate and the House, both still in the majority in December, admitted publicly and repeatedly that UI would be extended regardless. And the thing is, on tax cuts, Obama actually offered more than they were asking for. You do understand that the permanent reduction of the estate tax was a "sweetener" that Obama offered up without even being asked, yes?

    The "deal" played out about like the whole debt ceiling fiasco is playing out. Republicans have no cards to play...and Obama still folds. There was no need to make deficit reduction a bargaining chip in the raising of the debt ceiling. All Obama had to do was lead and say no. But it ought to be apparent by now that Obama wants these cuts. He's still pushing for them, and even pushing to "go big" so we can "take advantage of this rare opportunity."

    Obama wasn't forced into this. Obama facilitated it. It's what he wants. You don't need to believe me. Try believing Obama. He's telling you. Why won't you listen?

    Parent

    Ummm...correction (none / 0) (#50)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    Republican leaders of both houses, both still in the minority in December, not the majority.

    (I need  to slow down and proof read. Sorry.)

    Parent

    I don't think DADT would have been (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    gone via executive action until the President saw the end of his reign in the rearview.  And then, can I trust that this President was heartfelt about the issue and would have done the right thing?

    I am very selfish about all of this too.  We are at war all over right now.  The most competent soldiers save the most lives when the currency is bullets and bombs.  I consider if even one competent soldier willing to go through hell in this mess is lost over the issue of sexual preference in off duty hours, that is one too many.  And the gay community fights, they stalked Obama and gave him hell.  They were not going to let him rest or feel safe out in the open until he dealt with them and gave them something that they were demanding.  I wish more groups were as courageous.

    Parent

    DADT was also ruled unconstitutional in (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    Log Cabin Republicans v. US. IMO it was either pass something that would allow the military to implement the change in policy on their schedule or have it implemented immediately through the courts.

    A perfect storm, courts and activists, forcing action.  

    Parent

    In reality the Bush tax cuts were gone (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    in December 2010 when Congress passed and Obama signed the more generous "Obama tax cuts."

    December 17, 2010. President Obama signed the biggest tax-cut bill in years into law after the House approved the measure late Thursday...link


    Parent
    They will be over in 2012? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    That's funny. The Bush tax cuts weren't over in 2010 with large Democratic majorities in the house and senate and with no legislative action at all required to allow them to expire. But in 2012, with a Republican House and a likely Republican Senate, they'll expire and go away.

    Right. Sure they will.

    Parent

    Since you are aware that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    we have replaced Bush tax cuts with Obama tax cuts wouldn't it be more accurate to call them Obama tax cuts.

    They will be over in 2012.

    All I can say is Lucy would have a great time playing football with you.

    Parent

    It really is none of your business how I (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    cast my vote but it is fair to say I don't vote for politicians who want to cut SS, Medicare and Medicare.

    Parent
    I'll vote for a Democrat... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    ...if one runs. So no, I won't vote for a Republican like Obama.

    Parent
    You miss my pointt (none / 0) (#70)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    If Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012, that means no Democrat is running. If one runs, I'll for him or her. But Obama? No.

    Parent
    Keep plugging away on this one, Saul1 (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    At some point, what you are saying will hit home to most: The phrases we all know are "Calling the bluff" and "Put up or shut up." Thank you, Saul for the politeness you exhibit in getting to that point. (Well, "shut my mouth" as they say!)

    Once in awhile some of us apart from "the group" can lose patience too. Just in another way. So, we wait and let theme drone on.

    Parent

    "The Invisible Unemployed" (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    Very worthwhile piece in today's NYT, describing how the reality of the newest unemployment numbers has already been submerged by all the debt crisis talking points.

    Seems to me that this was the (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    "Golfing Strategy" wherein Obama was confident that he could effectively apply his wooing skills to Boehner wherein Obama got all that he wanted and it would be a win/win, giving Boehner all that he wanted. A demonstration that we can all get along, after all.

    The "crisis" is seen as an opportunity that can't be missed, a chance to do what Pete Peterson and his ilk want Obama to do, cut social security and medicare, and, for Boehner, what the Republicans have always had on their agenda.

    When Kathy Hoch won her NY congressional seat  based primarily on Ryan and the GOP's plan to kill Medicare and her pledge to protect it,  the president's congratulatory message omitted any reference to the underlying basis for the upset. Bill Clinton, at a Peterson conference, took poor Ryan aside to express his hope that the Democrats would not use the Hoch victory as an excuse to keep their hands off Medicare--and asked Ryan to call him about it (wonder if that call was placed).  

    What could go wrong?  Just about everything, and nothing remains but spin.  Boehner worries about not only his constituents, but also, he has that Cantor guy breathing down his neck.  Obama takes his constituents for granted, and has no Democratic leader to call him for anything but  for a copy of the latest talking points. And, the Republicans already have their campaign ads running, such as Crossroads GPS "Wake Up" (a Karl Rove tied group) that portrays an actor in tears with concern for the Obama cuts in her mother's Medicare.

    Actually (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    I think Orange Man was on board.  The Tea Party (and the no tax pledges many of them signed) caused this.

    Parent
    Yes, I think Boehner (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    may have been on board during play at the nineteenth hole.  However, he got some sobering news after he got home and was transfused with a few cups of tea.   But, it should not have been an unexpected happening.  This fits the pattern where the president endorses a GOP position (which may, in fact, be at one with his) and then the Republicans attack him for doing what they told him to do.

    Parent
    My ears were burning (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    Things to ponder:

    1. Orange Man needs democratic votes to pass his bill now that conservatives have abandoned both the Big and Small deal negotiations.  

    2. 1 is rare on big issues such as this.  Normally the GOP are lockstep to a fault. As a result, Pelosi suddenly has confirmed leverage that she did not before this development. Dem votes were always going to be needed because of Tea Baggers who would not support raising the ceiling under any circumstances, but now that power is front and center.

    3. Pelosi is not in a mood to concede much of anything. I absolutely love Pelosi and believe that this is another chance for her to show why I do. And I think she, and the progressive caucus will rise to the occasion. Orange Man doesn't want to bring up a bill that can't get the support of a majority of his caucus, so we can't expect that, but I think the liberal dems are going to find themselves in the position that the Hyde Amendment opponents were at the last minute of the ACA passing. I think that's exactly where we want someone like Pelosi to be.

    4. It is clear that Obama came to the table yesterday and demanded large and unambiguous tax hikes and would not accept less.

    Now I have no ieda how 1-4 play out in terms of the final legislation because no one (not even those who claim to know the future) can predict what discussions are occurring now behind the scenes or what the final version will look like.

    But I do think that 1-4 make for a more favorable bill than we would have received if Obama had never called the GOP bluff and doubled the deficit reduction offer. That's why I think the last few days have probably bin a win for progressives in the big scheme of things. Odd as that may seem.

    Now No.5 above is the interesting part from a commenting perspective because it is exactly what everyone predicted Obama would not do.  

    It's all just theater and positioning (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    The end result will likely be the 2 trillion in cuts the Dems basically conceded all along, and no tax increases. As someone reminded us yesterday, that in itself is a capitulation since there is no reason the debt ceiling bill had to be tied to spending cuts at all.

    This 'go big' pseudo negotiation was just theater to let each side make their political points. Dem side: republicans won't let us raise taxes on the rich.  Rep side: we won't raise taxes. the Dems are so mushy on their demands to raise taxes that the R's win all of the points in my view..

    Parent

    2 trillion in cuts (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    why.  What do we get for it?  The debt ceiling?  We don't get temporary stimulus, we get nothing?  We're getting something that should be a no-brainer, the debt ceiling.  I simply cannot be persuaded of the necessity of this move based on what we know.  

    I am so sick of "political theater."  I wish we'd been able to vote on that in 2008 - exactly how misleading are you going to be in the course of trying to pass bills through Congress?  I think there's a lot less political theater going on than people think anyway - the WH IMO believes 2 trillion in cuts will trigger the confidence fairy.  Well good luck with that and have fun doing what I asked every budget cutting GOP governor to do - explain to the kids in the schools you are hacking away at why it was just so very "necessary" you do so.  Every single person whose lives were hurt by your @ss-kissing show.

    Sorry, I'm a liberal - I've seen this sh*t before and I know there's a better way.

    Parent

    anyone who believes (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by observed on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    5 is a phd in applied moranology


    Parent
    Yeah- since he is clearly going to accept less (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:57:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Absolutely right (none / 0) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    He will accept less.

    Parent
    So how is it clear that he will NOT accept less? (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:04:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Hold on, I get it now. (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    You mean in exchange for the 4 trillion in cuts. Yes, I agree.

    Parent
    We are missing each other (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    I start from the default of what I thought was a reasonable position to get the insane Tea Party fueled GOP to get a deal:

    1. 1.5-2.5 trillion in cuts
    2. Tax increases disguised in a way that doesn't look like tax increases.

    Obama will almost certainly cave on a trillion in tax increases. I am concerned about how the theatrics play around getting a deal either slightly better or worse than what I see as the base line.

    Parent
    The problem is that those in power (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    are now considering what will appease the tea party to be the baseline.

    The Dem baseline should have been a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling.

    Of course he will cave on the tax increases. He caved on them in December when all he had to do was NOTHING to get them raised.

    Imagine the different conversation we would be having now if he had The Obama Middle Class Tax Cut available as a bargaining chip.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    Those that read must be morons because the reports are that that is what happened.

    It's pretty well established that he demanded about a trillion in tax increases.

    Also I think the correct term would be moronolgy.

    Parent

    lol. u need (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by observed on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    To brush up on ur blogology


    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    is funny.  And I needed a laugh.

    Parent
    The internet meme I was subtly (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    referencing is funny too.

    "Morans"

    Parent

    just bizarre. did u just (none / 0) (#102)
    by observed on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 05:03:45 PM EST
    Google that? U didnt know the reference when i made it


    Parent
    ah, you finally looked it up (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    See?  You can use google.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    "It is clear that Obama came to the table yesterday and demanded large and unambiguous tax hikes and would not accept less."

    Watch him do it.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:39:36 PM EST
    It is clear that Obama came to the table yesterday and demanded large and unambiguous tax hikes and would not accept less.

    Oh my G0d .... you seriously believe that?

    Who, having paid the slightest bit of attention over the past 2 1/2 years, would take one of Obama's demands seriously?

    Parent

    In case you forgot... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    The fact is that the Democrats did control both houses for the first two years of Obama's term. And they controlled both houses when Obama did his "deal" last December. Obama could have worked with or prodded those Democratically controlled houses to address issues of the debt limit and the Bush tax cuts very early in his term when he still had all his political capital, had the Republicans back on their heels and before he squandered his mandate. Why do you think he decided to not do that? Why do you think that more than deciding to not push for addressing these issues, he in fact pushed the leadership to NOT address these issues?

    Obama came into office at a time when bold leadership was what the nation was looking for and needed. The audacity of hope. The fierce urgency of now. That's why he was elected. It was a once in almost a lifetime opportunity. And instead of the fierce urgency of now and the bold leadership that implies, he gave us a weak, milquetoast post-partisan unity shtick presidency who either couldn't figure out how to lead as a truly strong and transformative progressive president, or who didn't want to lead as a transformative progressive president and helped usher in Republican policies under a Democratic banner.

    Inept or duplicitous. Take your pick.

    Bravissimo, Saul! (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:35:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Ever hear of the (none / 0) (#105)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:01:58 PM EST
    Presidential veto?

    Parent
    Done (none / 0) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    sorry I missed it

    Parent
    totally agree Romberry (none / 0) (#135)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 07:40:48 AM EST
    I though Bush was the worse president evah! but Barack (cave) Obama is sure giving him a run for his money. Only a "democrat" could eliminate SS as we know it and if obama gets a second term count on him "negotiating" it away.

    Inept or duplicitous? It never matters - only the outcome matters and the outcome has been and will continue to be bad for the middle class under BO.

    Parent

    Only a Dem president can do this (none / 0) (#141)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    IF the rest of the Dems acquiesce.  

    Parent
    They will- they are lemmings (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 06:49:24 AM EST
    They backed him and then got squashed in 2010 by the angry electorate. And they still didn't primary him - and he still raises insane money and i still read all his defenders right here.

    Parent
    I find it interesting (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    how the Obama apologists in Washington, and on these blogs, are precisely those who have no skin in the game and will not be negatively affected by the draconian damage they so bravely offer up with their "very serious" cover line of "shared sacrifice."

    The fact is that a very few number of people created this disaster and the fact that this gang of "useful idiots" are willing to sacrifice the well-being of millions of innocents to prove they have "guts" is the real tragedy of this story.

    Usually it isn't the President's offspring (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    that fight a country's wars either. A lot of truth over time in your remark, NYShooter.

    FTR, tho (and since you just happened to te the one to use the term "apologists" when I was thinking about it): The fact that people here or elsewhere have a different take/different opinion/different views, etc. than the prevailing winds on a blog neither makes them a nonconformist nor "apologists" anymore than those who use the terms would be Republican apologists. Just something I've been wanting to say, in general & in terms of discourse....

    Parent

    Well, its all about judgment, isn't it? (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    Useful, productive debate depends on two requirements:
    1. that both sides act in good faith
    2. that there really are two sides to the story

    Were there two sides to the Nazi/Jewish story?
    Were there two sides to the Slavery/Plantation story?

    Of course not. And, I'm willing to concede that early on in those two examples, before all the facts became readily available, there may have been some "good faith" debate. But once enough facts were exposed, enough facts that a majority of sentient humans could readily see what the truth was, those that went into denial, and became willfully ignorant to reality, and persisted in trying to find any reed, or imaginary speck of evidence, however unrealistic it might be, I would label them "Apologists."

    But, here's the thing, Christine. Tonight, not some undetermined time down the road, there are millions of people going to bed with nothing but pain, fear, and suffering to accompany them. With their children underfed, and/or their parents lacking adequate medical attention, they don't have time to wait while some "brave" well-to-do Power Brokers play political ping pong with their lives. Time has long since past in "outing" who the good guys, and bad guys, are. And those who still persist in straining all credulity by conjuring up unrealistic fantasies about as yet undisclosed secret maneuvers to be sprung at some opportune time in the future, I would also call them "Apologists."


    Parent

    Bravo, bravo! (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:13:08 PM EST
    Extremely well said.  Thank you!

    Parent
    Good faith (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    The opening statement about people acting in good faith is a condition with which I would gladly agree.

    The matter of whether there are two sides to a position, tho, is where--IMO--your discussion begins with a stretch and moves to overheated rhetoric. By that I mean: The WWII Nazi analogy & the references to Slavery are a sad comment in that you diminish the monstrosity, the horror of both situations by any attempt whatsoever to compare them (or even mention in the same breath)to a political conundrum. No matter how frustrating, no matter how troubling the current "debt" argument and a host of other political issues that we have been facing in recent years, there is nothing that remotely meets the inhumanity of the two examples that you would purport to cite. Please don't dishonor the memory of the victims of slavery & the victims of the Nazis by trying to justify a political word in today's political world.

    BTW, some of us have experienced first-hand (or very close thereto) the type of night pain you describe. Of course, that is wrong; of course we should not have that in our society at all.

    Your argument overreaches...because, apart from the misplaced stretch & analogy which you attempt to draw, just about any situation has at least two sides. Just like any case has two sides.

    Now, I did not mean to start a comparison to Nazis by pointing out not just to you (but to anyone within the scope of this thread) that it may be helpful for everyone to let go of the adjectival "apologist" for those with whom we do not agree on matters of politics, on matters of philosophy.  

    Parent

    Good job christinep (none / 0) (#130)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    in countering the silly rhetoric being posted by some.


    Parent
    Definition of "apologist" (none / 0) (#133)
    by Nemi on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 06:30:34 AM EST
    from Merriam-Webster
    one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

    I for one see no problem whatsoever with anyone using that term and personally use it whenever I (damn!) choose and find it appropiate.

    Parent
    Of course, Nemi (none / 0) (#137)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    My dictionary (Random House) defines the word thusly: a person who makes an apology or defense.

    I'm glad you printed the definition you saw because it raises an interesting point. Honestly, I thought: Why have I thought from way back that the word has a slightly perjorative tone, suggesting a defensive posture for one writing in support of a position or person. Your comment here got me moving to my dictionary where the word "apology" is part of the definition.

    Where does that get us? Probably where we've always been. Certainly, use whatever word you must use. My suggestion still remains: Using words like "supporter" "proponent" "follower" is more neutral to the one who supports or follows a position than the apologeia term. Or conversely:  Why should one who normally/usually/almost always (etc.) opposes the particular political person not be called an "apologist" for the opposite viewpoint, namely a Republican "apologist", or suchlike. Emotive language begets emotive responses.

    My concern in not yourself now your writings (and certainly not your usage of words.) My concern is the emotionally casual use of the term to lob at others with whom they disagree. (I suppose, then, a return lob is in order.)

    Parent

    I think that this statement by Krugman (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 07:33:31 AM EST
    would apply to apologists as well as pundits and include the "Grand Bargain" as well as jobs.

    Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you'd think the problem was "no, we can't." But the reality is "no, we won't." And every pundit who reinforces that destructive passivity is part of the problem. link


    Parent
    I agree and vice versa (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    People critical of Obama's actions are not haters.

    Parent
    I'd like to say I'm surprised (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    by the spin that this is a political win for Obama, but obviously, I can't.  There are some folks out there who are even arguing Obama wasn't actually proposing budget cuts by putting SS and Medicare on the table.  

    The theory that he wasn't proposing it (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    is based on the confidence that Boehner would say no.

    But Obama wants the story to be that HE DID offer it. OTherwise, what is the point of the gambit?

    In other words, how did Obama "call his bluff" if he did not offer it?

    It makes no sense.

    But the gambit makes no sense, because Obama goes down as the guy willing to cut Social Security and Medicare.

    If I'm Romney in 2012, I am definitely running that ad.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    If I'm Romney in 2012, I am definitely running that ad.

    I doubt Romney's political team would be sharp enough to do that, but yeah.  What's Obama going to say to that - "I was kidding!  Don't you see, I'm a master negotiator!"  

    Parent

    You can't be serious (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    Of course Romney's political team is sharp enough to be able to do that. And do that they will. The ad practically writes itself: "In 2011 President Obama tried to slash your social security and medicare by $4 trillion dollars! Fortunately the Republican Party was there to stop him. Vote to protect your social security and medicare from President Obama. Vote Mitt Romney."

    Parent
    Fooled you once, fooled you twice (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    Republican Governors did that in 2010. Fooled people here (who wanted to teach the Prez a lesson) once. Shame was on the Republicans. If Romney can get away doing this again in 2012, it will be fooling you twice. The shame will be on you.....

    Parent
    I have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    what you are talking about. Shame on who? How about shame on the president for handing the GOP such a wonderful campaign ad?

    Parent
    I don't think the campaign ad works (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    at all. There was no formal indication of what would be cut.  There is no sound bite to grab onto. There really is no ad.

    But what people will remember is that the Dems and Obama were willing to strike a deal and the GOP was not.  This is the moment that we can take the GOP's biggest strength, its unity, and marginalize it.

    If the faction of the GOP that refuses to vote for a decent deal comes to represent the face of the party and it is the dems who save the day, this will all be largely positive politically.

    We keep bouncing between the political and the policy though. Two very different issues, particularly because the cuts/increases discussed won't have a large impact on the short term economy either way.  None of this stuff will matter much to the employment number in 2012.

    Parent

    Unlike the soundbite for the 2010 ads (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    attacking Dems for cutting Medicare.

    You live in an alternate universe.

    Parent

    Ah but wait (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    Booman:

    I've been saying it for quite a while. Speaker Boehner can't pass anything without Democratic votes. His own caucus is crazy and irresponsible. Politically, the White House has done a great job of positioning themselves. They've put their sacred cows on the altar to await slaughter. They've identified nearly $2 trillion in spending cuts. They've talked about eliminating tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. And, after all this, Speaker Boehner says he can't make a single compromise and he can't pass anything.

    I never thought that Boehner would cave easily. He likes his cushy job and his large office where he can break the rules and smoke cigarettes to his heart's delight. But the White House has not only made as many concessions as anyone reasonable could expect them to make, they've won the messaging war with the public. Their positions not only poll better, but it's obvious to everyone that one side is being obstinate. If Obama holds firm on this ground, Boehner won't have a leg to stand on. He will have to crawl to Steny Hoyer and beg for the votes he needs to raise the debt ceiling. But I'm not sure he can succeed even if he capitulates. How many Republicans are willing to follow him off a cliff?

    [emphasis supplied]

    I guess if you think "I tried to cut social programs but they wouldn't let me raise taxes!" is a winning message then Obama's got your vote.  Their political message for 2012 seems to be Responsibility which ...ugh.  Who's going to buy that if unemployment's been over 8% for 4 years?

    Parent

    That is a funny post (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    It's as if the last 3 years have not happened.

    Parent
    Silly (1.50 / 2) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    Romney is going to run an ad claiming that Obama proposed to do what Romney thinks is necessary to fix the country.

    That would be a very, very odd ad.

    Anyway, today was a crucial news cycle because everyone meets at 6:00 eastern to discuss the deal.  I think it is probably one of the most important meetings of the year.  The timing of Orange Man's announcement set up a perfect Sunday of pundit discussion and the parties getting a feel for the way this is playing out and the dominant story is that the deal caved because the GOP would not bend.

    Very helpful for Obama and the dems this afternoon.

    That is what the repeated statements that a big deal is still on the table mean. They set the stage with the GOP on the defensive.

    The word from the meeting tonight will tell us a lot about where things really are because the GOP walked away from Biden's deal. Boehner has to be able to say that he can get them back to the table and get the to concede where they wouldn't before. If he can't, Super Hero Pelosi steps forward and that's when good things could happen.

    This is all completely pulled out of my a$$ (with support from some commentators I have read), but to be blunt, it's no more reliable than anything else I've read here or elsewhere.

    No one knows what the hell is going on and where this will end. Those that claim to are fools.

    Parent

    The Republican ran on saving Medicare (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    from the Democrats in 2010. IIRC that worked really, really well for them.

    Now they have Obama on record wanting to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Obama is a gift that keeps on giving if you are a Republican.

    Parent

    I don't think social security is getting cut. (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    Not in any material way.

    Parent
    Ah, I see even (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    you had to add a qualifier to your statement.

    IOW, you believe that SS will be cut but as far as your are concerned the cuts will not be material.

    What is not material to you may well make a big difference to people barely surviving now on SS.

    What a new G.A.O. report calls "food insecurity" remains stubbornly high among seniors with low incomes. In 2009, about 19 percent of households with a low-income person over age 60 faced this problem -- meaning that the older adult was uncertain of having enough food or unable to acquire enough.

    In elderly households below the poverty line, nearly a third suffer food insecurity, the G.A.O. found, and in 17 percent of them an older person had to eat less at some point in the past year because he or she simply couldn't afford food. link



    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    I know exactly what I mean and what I mean is that a proposal to raise the retirement age to 68 starting in 2075 and exempting all manual laborers from that increase is a pretty reasonable way to modify SS, save cash and harm few people in any material way, especially given what the productivity actuary tables will look like 60+ years from now.

    Retirement age for me is 67. It's already gone up a year for those of us born after 1960. The idea that taking it up to 68 30 years down the road isn't ridiculous, especially if you are protecting those who are engaged in the kind of labor that makes that concept problematic.

    Parent

    How can you know exactly what (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    you mean when you admit this stuff just comes out of your a$$? My. God.

    Parent
    Great idea! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    Let's build a whole new bureaucracy to determine who's eligible to retire at 67 and who at 68 (or 70, or 75, the way this is going), complete with multiple forms and doctors' certificates and investigations and arbitration and and and...

    Rather than raise the amount of income subject to SS tax.

    The mind reels.  Really.

    Parent

    An even better idea is to (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    create individual requirements

    to determine who's eligible to retire at 67 and who at 68 (or 70, or 75, the way this is going), complete with multiple forms and doctors' certificates and investigations and arbitration and and and...

    Cut processing staff in half thereby making it impossible for anyone to get through the system. Immediate elimination of any additional benefits from implementation through infinity all the while collecting the taxes.

    Just think of all wars that can be fought and they can guarantee tax refunds to every corporation and the uber-wealthy.  

    Parent

    I think you are (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    confusing budget cuts with cuts in Social Security, which is not paid for out of the budget.  Putting SS on the table is a ruse initially trotted out by the Repubs, and since misunderstood by people across the aisle.  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    You really are not good at political analysis are you?

    Parent
    Actually, I am better than average at it (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    But what I really excel at is being a very good target for completely unsupportable barbs by folks angry at moderate democratic strategies.

    Any who, the betting odds around this place have Obama losing in 2012 and them losing ground in congress in a huge disaster, if we were to take a poll, because of the unemployment numbers and the double dip recession that isn't really happening and the fact that Obama is a republican and he eats lunch every day at Wall Street and hates little kittens and all of that.

    So we'll get a nice little test of who has the right political analysis shortly.

    [Number One, please engage the "Obama will still win because he's a closet republican" hyper drives.  Engage.]

    Parent

    No you stink at it (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    because you fail to see that your 'analysis' is really just spin. You have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever when it comes to Barack Obama.

    Parent
    Daily Double for $2,000 (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    Alex: "What is a valid opinion called when someone you disagree with does it in the TL comments today?"

    ABG: Spin

    Alex: That is right!!!

    Parent

    Oh I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    it's not spin, it's talking out of your a$$. Your words, my friend.

    Parent
    Better than average LOL (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    You might be, as in 51 percentile, but around here that isn't going to get you very far.  At all.


    Parent
    The President has hurt himself (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    with this nonsense.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    But he's hurting more than just himself.  That's the real problem, imo.

    Parent
    From ABG's (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    a$$ to God's ears.

    Parent
    r. o. t. f. l. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:09:40 PM EST


    Parent
    "No one knows"? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    "No one knows what the h*ll is going on and where this will all end"?

    Not Obama, either, then.

    Listen to yourself, since you will not listen to others, and you will see why there is so little trust that he knows what he is doing.

    Parent

    I am listening to everyone (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    and there are many good points being made here.  But there are some stupid ones being made as well.

    The oddest thing to me about the reactions this week has been how much they directly conflict with what had been the biggest flaw in Obama from their perspective: lack of a back bone.

    So this week he's like screw all of it, here is a package that is double what the GOP wants, REAllY addresses entitlement shortfalls, puts a bunch of it on the backs of the rich and is sure (and when I say sure, I mean "as sure as BTD and folks like Anne will blast the upcoming compromise no matter what it looks like") that his base is going to roast him alive for it (including folks in congress) and he goes for it anyway.  He puts his credibility with the party on the line to invoke real change in the form of the first real attempt to address future shortfalls now taken in decades. And the compromise he proposes is about as down the middle, bipartisan, pain on all sides, as you can get.

    But now we've switched the discussion from "change" and bold moves that could come at political sacrifice, to "well he's not making his bold and painful moves in a way that protects MY preferred policies".

    Sorry folks. That's not the way a real reformer works. If you voted for someone who will rise above the fray and try to effect real change (which will always be unpopular to some large constituency) you can blast him for not giving you what you want but you can't pretend that this isn't what bipartisan reform looks like.

    There is no difference between the "no entitlement changes whatsoever" crowd and the Tea Baggers.

    None.

    For some reason people think that I (and many others) support Obama because we don't understand the facts or don't get it or are closet conservatives or whatever.  This is what I voted for people: a guy that would take tough positions to make change.

    One thing you can't do is to pretend that any other President of the last 30 years would be proposing something that would be so unpopular and taking responsibility for it.

    Dude has suggested modifying entitlements (unpopular), increasing taxes (unpopular) and cutting spending (unpopular) and people who are "good" political analysts are telling us that Obama is being weak and not leading.

    Just pick one line of criticism and stick with it people.

    Parent

    Such arrogance n/t (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:34:38 PM EST


    Parent
    He's "leading" like a blind man (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:41:56 PM EST
    Simply doing the unpopular is not leadership; when you do that which is necessary and beneficial, and if that is unpopular, then that is leadership.  

    Obama is lost.

    Parent

    ABG is the kind of (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    disingenuous hack who will claim if Obama is re-elected next year that all his 'analysis' here is thereby vindicated. Every single word of it. He really is insufferable.

    Parent
    But, aren't we all predictable here? (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:51:59 PM EST


    Parent
    It's the hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:57:21 PM EST
    not the predictability that I deplore.

    Parent
    Actually, I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    we're on the same team at all.

    Parent
    Barf n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 06:10:40 PM EST


    Parent
    But is he leading (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    I am trying to get folks to see this from my perspective in baby steps.

    Place what you think of the policy aside, can we dismiss the idea that Obama is not putting himself on the line or leading as dumb now please?  Based on everything I have red, this is coming down to Obama v. the GOP congress. He's out front.

    I just want folks to realize that as they are distracted by their attempts to bash him on his next tragic error, he's proving many of the things you bashed him about last week to be wrong.


    Parent

    trying to spin straw into gold, AngryGuy? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    The oddest thing to me about the reactions this week has been how much they directly conflict with what had been the biggest flaw in Obama from [many TL commenters'] perspective: lack of a back bone.

    um, no, AngryGuy

    if you've been reading this blog -- & it's not clear that you have been for long, since you suddenly turned up here to cheerlead just before the 2010 midterms (apparently having temporarily wearied of harassing the wimminfolk at TGW & elsewhere) -- you would know that the biggest flaw in Obama from the perspective of many TL commenters is that he was only minimally qualified to serve as President of the United States:

    1. born in the USA: check
    2. over the age of 35: check

    rock-bottom minimal qualification, lack of experience, dearth of negotiating skills: all prominently on display for the past two years

    & those are the deficiencies in Obama that you have to look at if you still hope to see him as any kind of progressive or even any kind of Democrat rather than a kitteh-eating evil Republican genius

    Parent

    Addams Family (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    I believe that at this point he has more experience than any of the candidates he ran against in 2008.  

    But I'll tell you what. When your imaginary primary challenger in 2012 runs against Obama, I want you to write him or her a letter and tell him to push the "Obama has no experience as president" theme as hard as he or she possibly can.

    Parent

    you are changing the subject (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    i was calling you on your BS in a previous comment

    in that comment, you claimed that the main knock on Obama among many at TL is that he has no backbone

    i said that instead it his is very costly (to poor and working class and middle class voters, which means pretty much everybody) lack of experience, which leaves him getting rolled time & again by his politically savvier opponents in the GOP

    as a matter of fact, many of us would say that Obama has shown plenty of backbone in terms of regressive policy

    that's POLICY, AngryGuy, but for you it's always personal & all about Obama

    but anyway, i do agree with your point in the present comment

    yes, Obama now has more experience than any of his primary challengers in 2008

    never mind that exactly the same thing can be said of every incumbent president who has ever run against challengers who have never served as President of the United States (& about every president who runs against imaginary primary challengers, too, if they have never served as President of the United States)

    never mind that Obama's experience has been a disaster for the Democratic Party's abandoned traditional constituencies

    Parent

    But is experience at caving ... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    I believe that at this point he has more experience than any of the candidates he ran against in 2008.

    ... really something you want to highlight?

    Parent

    Not my biggest beef (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    Just for the record.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    I personally didn't vote for change for change's sake.  I assumed the D behind Obama's name indicated that change would be in a certain direction.

    Now this is true:

    So this week he's like screw all of it, here is a package that is double what the GOP wants, REAllY addresses entitlement shortfalls, puts a bunch of it on the backs of the rich and is sure (and when I say sure, I mean "as sure as BTD and folks like Anne will blast the upcoming compromise no matter what it looks like") that his base is going to roast him alive for it (including folks in congress) and he goes for it anyway.  

    But that's not heroic - that's just triangulation.

    I'm not going to applaud wildly for something we've already seen before, that liberals have been gnashing their teeth over for a long time.

    Parent

    Depends on who the audience is, BTD (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    Different audiences, obviously.

    A couple of friends of mine briefly mentioned the ongoing "debt" situation over the weekend--friends who are somewhat apolitical in the off-season, but who tend to vote Democratice in Presidential elections--and these friends noted (after I said that maybe Obama would be seen as going too far in the pursuit of an agreement) that the Republicans looked like fools or really "not wanting to help the country" (3 direct comments) when the walked away or "scuttled" the talks.  Fascinating.

    BTW. These friends over the past 20+ years tend to presage a much broader view than I expect. (As one almost vehemently hissed: "No one will remember the dance invite from Obama about Social Security...COLA change is a "red herring.") This one would be way above my pay-grade, as they say. But what keeps encroaching on my thoughts is that the President does know how to gamble/throw the dice in the face of near certainty that he is cautious. For all my years, I've rarely seen this kind of combo; and--tho it is driving me a bit batty to wait it out, I think to myself that there are a few more improvised steps in this dance than the "book of negotiations" spells out.

    Parent

    I would agree it's above your pay grade (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    Those below it, however, are likely to remember it.

    Parent
    Huh? Am I missing "cutesy?' (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:13:56 PM EST


    Parent
    probably (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by sj on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:17:56 PM EST


    Parent
    So saith (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    the Beltway conventional wisdom, anyway.  Congratulations on having studied it so carefully.

    Parent
    I think it is clear (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    that this has been bad for the President imo.

    Parent
    Someone needs to tell Obama that there (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    are times when "historic" and "unprecedented" are not good descriptives for his policies and actions.

    This is just the latest instance, but I'm sure it won't be the last.

    Even now, I'm positive he's huddled with his "advisors" trying to think of a way to get Boehner on board with more cuts - even as in the war rooms throughout GOP and RNC campaign land, the ads and bumper stickers are writing themselves.

    2 Trillion is the number (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    And Dems will give it.

    Hopefully most of it will be fake.

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    I think "fake" cuts are something being discussed right now to allow the GOP to save face.  

    To some degree when I hear these large numbers I know a big chunk of it is BS (elimination of spending contingent on other spending in the future, accounting changes, etc.)

    The question is how much.

    Parent

    Even it most of it is fake (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    it is a terrible deal for Dems. There should be no cuts tied to the debt ceiling.

    And then comes the budget for next year.

    Parent

    You can say that again. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    "There should be no cuts tied to the debt ceiling."

    Exactly right. Sets a precedent. A bad one. Obama seems good at that.

    Parent

    To boldly negotiate (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    what no President has had to negotiate before ....

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    to boldly negotiate what no president has offered to negotiate before.

    Parent
    It would be far better (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    to have a clean bill, BTD. But, the election last November really solved that for this go-round.  We can repeat how much better it would be to recognize that the "debt" argument is out of hand or we can accept the admittedly questionable reality of the the terms of the argument today. (A similar situation a long time ago was the sloganeered "law & order" bullroar in 1968 & later. It didn't really work to challenge it, & we Dems lost. We needed to beat them on their own terms, some of us would say now.)

    Wishes aren't fishes. The "debt" talk has been growing since the heyday of Reagan & continues to spawn its undigestible seed. IMO, Obama has been trying to outmaneuver the opposition in the "debt" arena that gained so much traction for the last 30 years (the ole' "manage it like a household" bs.) After years of gaining an unthinking credibility, it does seem as if Obama is using the terms of the game-in-play to move beyond that. While that may turn out to be the incorrect approach, it might be useful to see how it plays out for now.

    Parent

    My argument (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:27:12 PM EST
    if you care to address it, is that the President, in making The Deal, has made this all inevitable.

    Why? Because he extended the Bush tax cuts. His bargaining chip.

    Do you have a response to my argument in this post? And in innumerable posts from December on?

    Parent

    We do not agree (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    on what he could have obtained in December. Under the circumstances of last November (and a timid Senate), I firmly believe--as you firmly believe otherwise--that Obama's securing UI, START, the asbestos first-responders settlement, and overturning DADT surpassed what anyone expected during a lame-duck. Additionally, I believe--in contravention to your belief on this matter, BTD--that the "top 2% revenue enhancement or tax" was not only a bargaining chip then, but will be a bargaining chip in the next year. And, perhaps with more force.

    IMHO, the words I have seen addressing this issue at this point come down to a value judgment in the nature of subscribing to a particular belief. People tend to hold to their "beliefs" for awhile.

    Parent

    From AtlanticWire, 12/16/2010 (none / 0) (#132)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    President Obama told Democrats that if they don't vote for the tax deal, they'll "end his presidency," according to Rep. Peter DeFazio. DeFazio told CNN that the "White House is putting on tremendous pressure" to convince reluctant lawmakers to support the compromise, which extends the Bush tax cuts for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months, and, most offensive to progressives, significantly lowers the estate tax.

    maybe Obama never said this - that's what the White House claims

    he said/he said

    whom to believe?

    Parent

    You know the answer (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    One believes whomever one is predisposed to believe. (In this case, you & I might believe two different people.) Tho, consider that the "truth" in these situations can be a mix or something entirely unnoticed...and, it usually is.

    Parent
    As a starting point, yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by sj on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    One believes whomever one is predisposed to believe.

    But what someone says (even when you are predisposed to believe them) is also just a starting point.  It seems to me that it must also be evaluated in conjunction with one's actions.  Words are easily said.  Actions speak more honestly.

    Parent
    I agree with that sentiment. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:25:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Just because the talk has been growing (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 10:59:38 PM EST
    doesn't make it more credible; if anything, the whole argument about the debt and the deficit has become an urban legend.  

    Obama had a choice to make, and the easier choice, in my opinion, was to just go along with the talk, reinforce it, co-opt it and make it part of the Democratic message, use it to push an agenda that is less-than-friendly to the least among us - OR - he could have worked to destroy that myth, build a case for using the power of government to put people back to work, improve the quality of people's lives and - in putting that into action - just completely shred the GOP/Norquist/Reagan ideology.  That's how you outmaneuver the opposition, christine, not by doing what Obama seems to be doing - trying to prove that he can be a better Republican than the Republicans.  

    It's starting to remind me of the experience my husband had some years ago.  He had a computer he wanted to sell, so he put an ad in the paper that set a price of $1,500 or best offer.  He got a call from someone who clearly didn't understand the concept, and offered my husband $1,600.  

    Parent

    The debt talk (none / 0) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    started this political season with the findings of Obama's CAT Commission.  Then the beltway pundits/er... Admin water carriers took up the cause, and no one but the isolated Anthony Weiner types dared to counter the babble....

    THe only reason the public is concerned about the debt is that the Admin, the Repubs and the talking heads have created a faux crisis, and put the issue front and center.  Now, if someone were to come along and talk truth and jobs, that would arrest the concern mighty quickly.

    Since the Dem President has now offered up SS & Medicare, the public, which opposes changes to these programs, will put the blame on him and no one else.

    In addition, the 2010 election results did not mean that the public favors traditional Repub economic policy; they favor effective action taken to create more jobs and increase the value of working wages.  The vote was an anti-Admin vote that had not done enough to address the economic crises felt in the average American home. To wit -- the precedent setting election in NY where a Dem won for the first time (evah?) in a solidly Republican district by promising to protect Social Security.

    Parent

    What are the Sunday a.m. very serious (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    people saying on behalf of the Obama admins. this morning?

    Have not watched a Sunday show in years (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:20:41 PM EST
    Watched the TdF and now, the Yankeees.

    Parent
    Well, from the horse mouth... (none / 0) (#12)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    Obama appears to be doubling down on his promise to screw with our retirement insurance Republican support be damned.

    Parent
    Unbelievable. And the GOP is keeping (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    a straight face whilst the bonanza rolls their way.  

    Parent
    LOL, I meant horses mouth (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:30:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Geithner on Face the Nation (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    mostly just made the case for the importance of the US not defaulting. He said no serious leader would suggest it is ok to default on debts- and Bob Sheiffer quoted Michele suggesting it would not be the end of the world...Geithner - I said no serious leader.....

    That's all the blather that stood out ...

    Parent

    Michele Bachmann (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    ...last name got deleted in my bad typing

    Parent
    I will repeat myself because it is worth (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    remembering that you are talking about politicians.

    Previously the Demos promised $2.00 in cuts for every $1.00 of new taxes and the cuts never happened.

    The taxes did happen and GHWB was toast.

    The cuts being proposed are just more promises to be carried out over 10 years.

    The Repubs may accept promises that won't happen but they appear, and I emphasize "appear," to have learned that trading something for nothing isn't too smart.
     

    Re no. 4: in what way was Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    issuing an Executive Order banning federal funding for abortions a "win" for Speaker Pelosi?

    Good catch (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    That should have said "Hyde Amendment proponents"

    In other words, a minority of Hyde Amendment dems were able to hold all of ACA hostage at the end because of the margins needed.

    I would love to see Pelosi in that position of power at the right time.

    Parent

    Breaking! GOP Only Cares About Tax Cuts For The Rich! | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment