Krugman: "But that says more about the complainers than it does about Obama himself."

[ProSense]

The WYSIWYG president

There’s a lot of dismay/rage on the left over Obama, a number of cries that he isn’t the man progressives thought they were voting for.

But that says more about the complainers than it does about Obama himself. If you actually paid attention to the substance of what he was saying during the primary, you realized that

<...>

But on health care, I don’t see how he could have gotten much more. How could he have made Joe Lieberman less, um, Liebermanish? And I have to say that much as I disagree with Ben Nelson about many things, he has seemed refreshingly honest, at least in the final stages, about what he will and won’t accept. Meanwhile the fact is that Republicans have formed a solid bloc of opposition to Obama’s ability to do, well, anything.

But back to Obama: the important thing to bear in mind is that this isn’t about him; and, equally important, it isn’t about you. If you’ve fallen out of love with a politician, well, so what? You should just keep working for the things you believe in.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-wysiwyg-president/

Good question.

Obama To Press Corps: I Can’t Make GOP Cooperate On Budget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022776876

[Skittles]

1. you should have highlighted THIS part

If you actually paid attention to the substance of what he was saying during the primary, you realized that

[ProSense]

3. Do you

you should have highlighted THIS part

If you actually paid attention to the substance of what he was saying during the primary, you realized that

...believe the people complaining about Obama going back on his promises "actually paid attention"?

I mean, some people didn't even know the President's position on Afghanistan.

[Skittles]

20. YES

[Electric Monk]

2. Is tonight repost 3 year old blog posts night again? I missed the memo :(

[TDale313]

4. Yeah, me too.

[ProSense]

5. I only see one other:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022779239

[Cha]

6. A shitload more than 3 years.

[freshwest]

7. It's inevitable there will be complaints. But it's not like this is LBN, you know.

[Cha]

8. Lol, you're right, freshwest.. the opposite of LBN..

boring predictable warmed up leftovers.

Where's that Pres Obama drinking their milkshake? Oh, here it is!..

[hfojvt]

10. let me add mine then

back when I thought Obama was worth defending

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/121


Why shouldn't 'others' be part of the problem?
Posted by hfojvt in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jan 18th 2010, 12:15 PM

"How do progressives get disillusioned? They come to DU where they can read about how bad the Obama administration is.

Did I say bad? That's not nearly a strong enough term. The Obama administration is not just bad, according to many threads and front page articles on DU. The Obama administration is corrupt, sold out, just like the Bush administration. Worse than worthless, because instead of accomplishing nothing, they accomplish giant giveaways to the corporations. Plus, they lie all the time."

before he betrayed the country by making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

And I, at least was true to my word. Because back then a few "Obama-haters" asked me "Is there nothing that Obama can do that will make you stop defending him?" and I said "I will find it indefensible if he does not allow the Bush tax cuts to die."

[ProSense]

11. Wow, thanks for sharing that

brain-cell destroying comment. The three-year-old posts weren't of random Internet rants.

[jazzimov]

13. Oh, I just don't know where to begin

that this post is WRONG.

Actually, now that I read it, it only claims that Obama is "just like Bush" despite all evidence to the contrary - because he refused to be "just like Bush".

The article claims that Obama is "just like Bush" because he tried to reach a compromise and or consensus - which Bush never tried to do.

WTF?

[dsc]

9. I will be blunt about what angered me most about health care in regards to Obama

He took the easy road in the primary by telling people what they wanted to hear, instead of what they needed to hear. There was no way, none, that we could have an end to pre existing conditions without having a mandate to purchase insurance. He knew that in 2007 and 2008 when he vilified both Hilary and Edwards for having mandates. It was a cheap way to get primary votes that he knew would cost him when he had to govern but he did it anyway.

What would have kept Lieberman and Nelson in check was an iron clad rule by Reid that no committee or subcommitee chair could participate in the filibuster of the health care bill.

[ProSense]

12. Rightfully so,

"He knew that in 2007 and 2008 when he vilified both Hilary and Edwards for having mandates."

...they wanted to garnish people's paychecks.

[dsc]

15. and he merely is adding to their IRS tax bills

that is hardly any different, anyone who doesn't get insurance will never get a full tax refund again.

[ProSense]

16. You know that's nonsense. n/t

[dsc]

18. No it isn't

I realize the IRS can't put a lien on you over it, or take you to court, but if you are like the majority of tax payers who get a refund every year, the IRS will reduce your refund by any penalty imposed for not having insurance. If the penalty is larger than than the refund, then you get no money, otherwise you get a reduced refund.

[ProSense]

19. Yes, it is.

"I realize the IRS can't put a lien on you over it, or take you to court, but if you are like the majority of tax payers who get a refund every year, the IRS will reduce your refund by any penalty imposed for not having insurance."

Even as you described it, that is not the same as garnishing someone's paycheck. Ugh!

[dsc]

21. spoken as someone who never had a refund taken away

many people count on those refunds for important bills such as property taxes, tuition, etc. I fail to see a huge difference between having 1000 dollars taken from ones refund and having 12 monthly paychecks have 83.33 withheld from each check.

[ProSense]

22. What the hell are you talking about?

Snatching money from people's paychecks is sickening. Period!

[dsc]

23. again for many poor people

those tax refunds are the largest paycheck they get. and they count on it just like people count on pay checks. It is no different at all to take 1000 from a tax refund and to take 1000 from a series of paychecks.

[ProSense]

24. "for many poor people" garnishing their paychecks is disgusting.

You obviously don't know shit about being poor.

[dsc]

25. In point of fact for many single poor people it is exactly garnishing their paychecks

If a person doesn't get refundable credits the only reason they get a refund at all is that the government took more money in taxes than it was owed out of each paycheck (ie they garnished money from the sacred paycheck) and then refund the money at tax time. Under the mandate, they now will be keeping some or all of that money. Now go ahead and tell me again how that isn't the exact, precise, same thing as garnishing paychecks. I will admit in the case of credits it is not exactly the same thing but it is splitting a pretty fine hair to find a difference. OH, and in 2001, 2002, and 2003 I made about 11k a year.

[Demit]

26. If you are having too much money withheld each week, you can fix that.

Unless you like the forced savings aspect of overwithholding, so that you get a lump sum back, you should be adjusting your withholding status to increase your net weekly pay. Otherwise you are lending your money to the federal government without interest. If your weekly paycheck is too skimpy & you could use that money for expenses, that's just not smart.

[jazzimov]

17. Actually, during the primaries

I was anti-Obama simply because he was anti-mandate. I felt that "everyone had to be into the pool" or else it would fail. Obama eventually "evolved" into my position.

[dawg]

33. He was either dreadfully uniformed on the issue or he was willing to prevaricate.

That's the main reason I voted for Hillary. That, and the fact that I was afraid he might actually be serious about all his "compromise" rhetoric.

[Number23]

14. Krugman wanted to say: "If you fall out of love with a president, so F*CKING what?"

[dawg]

27. Finish the damned quote.

"But that says more about the complainers than it does about Obama himself. If you actually paid attention to the substance of what he was saying during the primary, you realized that:

(a) There wasn’t a lot of difference among the major Democratic contenders
(b) To the extent that there was a difference, Obama was the least progressive"

Your post omits the meat of what Krugman was saying. It was very deceptively edited.

[ProSense]

29. No, it wasn't

"Your post omits the meat of what Krugman was saying. It was very deceptively edited."

My point was about making Lieberman less like Lieberman, and the same goes for the GOP.

The snip you pointed to has nothing to do with my point. In fact, I spent the entire primary disagreeing with Krugman, a Hillary supporter.

Hillary and Edwards wanted to garnish wages to pay for health care. That didn't seem to bother Krugman. I also objected to Hillary's position on the Iraq war. She was against setting a timetable to get out. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR, voted for the bankruptcy bill, and a lot more. In fact, Hillary just came out in support of marriage equality. So Krugman's point about Obama being less progressive is not something I agree with.

He also made the point about Lieberman, and I agree.

[dawg]

30. You are trying to argue against Obama critics, as you always do.

You failed. The piece you cite, if you go just beyond your (...), is very highly critical of Obama as well. Your snip was, ahem, well placed.

It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with the "yadda, yadda" woman.

Your posts are almost never about the discussion of issues. They are designed to catapult the propaganda in support of this President.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the ACA is probably the best we could have gotten with the Congress that we have. But that doesn't make me happy about eating my peas, ya know.

And Obama isn't running again. The time for reflexively defending him from any and all criticism is over. Some of us would like our party to stop drifting towards the right on economic matters. But we will never be able to stop this slide without raising our voices and criticizing people in our own party. It isn't just Obama, Harry Reid and a large bloc of Congressional Dems are just as guilty.

Many of us on DU may be okay with a party that is liberal on social issues, but center-right on economics. And if you're one of them, more power to you.

But I disagree. As does Krugman, when he hasn't been selectively edited.

Reason for edit: cite for site

[ProSense]

31. The fact

"You failed. The piece you site, if you go just beyond your (...), is very highly critical of Obama as well. Your snip was, ahem, well placed. "

...that the piece was critical of Obama has nothing to do with the point about Lieberman, which was relevant to my point: There is nothing the President can do to change people who refuse to cooperate on an or any issue. (Lieberman or the GOP).

But on health care, I don’t see how he could have gotten much more. How could he have made Joe Lieberman less, um, Liebermanish? And I have to say that much as I disagree with Ben Nelson about many things, he has seemed refreshingly honest, at least in the final stages, about what he will and won’t accept. Meanwhile the fact is that Republicans have formed a solid bloc of opposition to Obama’s ability to do, well, anything.

[dawg]

32. Joe Lieberman is ancient history.

I just wish Obama would find a way to make *himself* less Liebermanish.

[LWolf]

28. I actually paid attention to the substance of what he was saying.

I always knew he wasn't the man the majority thought they were getting.

I listened. That's why I never supported his nomination, and was not surprised to be unhappy with his administration. I never expected anything any different.