Do Maher, Krugman, and Co. understand how our government works? I'm really not sure.

[RBInMaine]

I like Bill Maher. Great comedian. Love it when he slams the RePUKES. However, he continues to insist that Obama has failed because the stimulus was not big enough and the tax cuts for the rich were extened last winter. Krugman also continues to insist that the stimulus should have been bigger and that the government should pass another stimulus. Do these fellas remember anything, and do they understand our system at all?

So, hopefully one last time, let's get it clear. A larger stimulus was tried but COULD NOT PASS THE CONGRESS. There. Do you guys get it now? Anything unclear about that? In the Senate, you need 60 votes. To get three Republican votes at the time, Snowe, Collins, and Specter, they were forced to pare down the size of the stimulus and still those three were lambasted by the right wing for supporting it.

Just how in hell does Krugman think another stimulus could possibly pass now? Does he live anywhere near Earth? Same thing with the tax cut extension for the rich. The bill to end those FAILED in the Congress last winter. Had it passed, Obama would have signed it. Starting to see the pattern now guys? Starting to get a clue? Same with the public option. That would not pass the Senate. Plain and simple. If so, he'd have signed it. But it couldn't pass. Understand now? Remember that thing we call the Constitution and how we have not one but THREE branches of government, and how one of them is called the Congress which MAKES THE LAWS? Remember that little tidbit? You have to GOVERN, and you have to work with who you have to work with in our THREE branch system of government. Governing is the art of the possible, not holding out forever in gridlock and doing nothing out of "principle". Had Obama not compromised last winter, the tax cuts for the middle class would have also ended which would have been awful for the economy and horrendously unpopular up and down the political spectrum.

Now we have many more TeaBaggers in Congress, and the RePukes control the House. Just what do Krugman and Maher expect to pass now? Please guys, and those who worship what they say, I urge you to take a middle school civics class. Also, be so kind as to remember that Obama and Dems saved the auto industry, stopped a full blown recession, prevented hundreds of thousands of firemen and teachers from getting axed, funded many infrastructure projects all over the country, expanded SCHIP, lowered college loan costs, ended getting thrown off your health plan, ended DODT, and the list goes on and on. So be fair, be real, and please, figure out how American government actually works. It would be so refreshing.

[Voltaire]

1. So let me get this straight

We have just simply GOT to play by the rules, and continued to get rolled, while the GOP Crime Party gets to bend and break the rules and get everything they want. Tough times call for tougher measures to get them fixed, more creative measures. Hiding behind the Constitution and saying what we CAN'T do ain't cutting it anymore. They call Obama a dictator anyway, he might as well be one. For the good of the SANE people of the United States.

[RBInMaine]

2. Are you hearing yourself? First, hyperbole abounds. Next, you also need the civics class. Please

take one.

[RBInMaine]

3. Have you ever actually governed anything? If not, I can understand why you don't get it.

[Voltaire]

45. I have forgotten more Civics than most Americans will ever know

Textbook Civics have gotten us to this point. Time for something different. Or we are finished.

[joeprogressive]

56. Yes, I have and much more effectively than this president.

Next question.

[treestar]

66. That is arrogant to the core

No, you have not run for or accomplished anything like the President has.

[woo me with science]

58. Do you have that response pre-posted on your clipboard, RBinMaine?

Because that cookie cutter snark without basis seems to be your response to every single issue on which Obama has betrayed us...sort of the RBinMaine version of "Leave Obama alone!"





Have you ever actually governed anything? If not, I can understand why you don't get it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=736133&mesg_id=736137


Have you ever had to govern something? Anything? Do you understand American government? I doubt it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=626643&mesg_id=627410


So many of these incessant bitchers have never had to govern a fucking thing and have no idea how difficult it is.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x407404#408255


Have you ever governed anything? How about serving on a student council, or an executive board of a business, or of a non-profit, or of a social club, etc.?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=734661&mesg_id=734661


Obama is spot on brilliant and correct here as usual, and anyone who has ever actually governed
anything and understands our history and our system of government, or has been involved in an organization where tasks and goals had to be formulated and accomplished, knows that he is simply speaking the truth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/bcnews.go.com/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x600541#600587


The bill to end those last Dec. DID NOT PASS CONGRESS. Have you ever governed anything at all ?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4904007&mesg_id=4904096


You and many others are in sore need of a civics lesson. Have you ever in your life governed anything?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=534720&mesg_id=535075


Have you ever governed anything? Ever managed anything at all? Get in the real world.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=552311&mesg_id=552349


Ever had to actually govern anything? Know anything at about American history?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=696814&mesg_id=700295


Oh here we go with the fringe ranting. Take a civics lesson, and try GOVERNING something, just once.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/bcnews.go.com/en.wikipedia.org/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4930086#4930278


Those who live on some other planet with unrealistic expectations, who do not understand political reality, who have never governed anything, and who would rather piss and moan and threaten to stay home or waste their votes on nuts like Nader instead of getting out there and smashing down the right wing TeaWhackos.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=696814&mesg_id=698167




(that was just a very small sampling....:rofl:)

[MissDeeds]

62. Ouch!

Good catch.

:rofl:

[mochajava666]

77. Thank you so much. That was great.

[CakeGrrl]

81. Here's someone else putting it succinctly if it's variety you crave:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/in-partial-defense-of-obama/243013/

When you're naive about government, you're naive about government.

[CakeGrrl]

4. Those with a media pulpit do the country a great disservice by being ignorant about this

and spreading it far and wide rather than being realistic about how government functions.

There's a notion out there that all the Dems have to do is propose a tax cut for the middle class and raise it on the wealthy, and we're good.

Yes, that could work if you had a SOLID Dem/Progressive House of Representatives and a FILIBUSTER-PROOF Senate majority. But there's no way in hell the Teabaggers would go for that. They are there to enforce the desire NOT to tax the rich even more strongly than moderate Republicans.

Another problem is the romantic notion that President Obama is not channelling his inner LBJ and staring down those unruly Congressmen into voting his way. I want someone to say with a straight face that that would work with ANYONE they want to see in the WH.

It boggles my mind how so many people seem to have forgotten how Congress works. They'll say we had all three houses when President Obama came in, but you indicated in your OP why that was a fiction, never mind the fact that the 60-vote Dem majority was only in session for 49 days as was pointed out the other day, and one of those votes was Lieberman, and a few were Blue Dogs.

SOLID DEM/PROGRESSIVE HOUSE.

FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY IN SENATE.

That's what will work. If people think they're just going to try and replace the President and all will be well, they're dreaming.

[RBInMaine]

5. In the first two years, the House was pretty solid. The problem, as you say, was the Senate. Here's

why. As you indicate, Senators have larger and more diverse constituencies. So with Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelso, etc. you were never going to get a public option, and on the stimulus there was just no way that more could have been passed. Just no way. So thanks. If people are unhappy, elect more Dems, preferably progressive ones. But, TOUGH to do in many areas.

[vi5]

16. O.K. simple question...

During that whole debate, how many times did President Obama urge the Senate to allow "an up or down vote"? How many times did he talk about the need for fillibuster reform?

Could he have forced it? No. But how many times did he try to work the refs? Because I know that Bush called for that a lot during his term. An awful lot.

Again. If you have some speeches or things where he did this during that time, by all means pass them on. I'd like to know if I'm wrong about this.

[verges]

68. But why should they do that if

people like Maher and Krugman just shut up and don't voice what a progressive stance is?

[muffin1]

76. And yet Obama supported some of these same Blue Dog dems

you mention in their next election.

[treestar]

61. Exactly. It's lazy thinking.

Just replace the President and it's all good. They are obsessing over and depending on the Presidency. Which was intended to be much weaker than these people want.

[jobycom]

6. Civil Rights wouldn't pass, either. Except that they did.

You under-represent the power of a genuine leader at getting things accomplished. Clinton got more from Gingrich when Gingrich was more popular, partly because he knew what he wanted going in, and partly because he knew what Gingrich wanted.

The budget bill wasn't nearly as disastrous as it's being made out to be by some, but I can't shake the feeling that a stronger president--Clinton, LBJ, Roosevelt, take your pick)--would have gotten more. And I can't shake the feeling that Obama still doesn't have a solid understanding of what he wants or needs. The strongest leaders, in either party, have a clear vision, and when they compromise and negotiate, they make sure they keep that vision in sight, and don't give away the key elements, or undermine them with other compromises. I never get that feeling with Obama. I think he thinks that as long as he gets a bill passed that has a checklist of things he can sell to his supporters, he's done a good job, even if the other side's checklist undermines his. His compromises aren't about having a clear economic goal and getting as much of that goal as he can, they are about ticks on a checklist. It's the difference, comparatively, between an NFL quarterback who measures his success by how many passes he completed and how may yards he threw for and what his ultimate quarterback rating is, and a quarterback who measures his success by how many games he's won.

I can't explain it any better. Obama is not a bad president, and he can be good sometimes. He's not a sellout. He's just not that great, and unfortunately for him, the times really want him to be great.

I don't know about Maher, but Krugman and others are lamenting what could have been done, more than what was done. Krugman understands the game pretty well, and he can see the vision that Obama doesn't see, and he knows more than most people posting on random political boards about the way things in DC are done. It's from knowledge, not ignorance, of our government that he's speaking.

[RBInMaine]

8. Krugman continues to advocate more stimulus, a hopeless idea with this Congress. Also,

continually bemoaning what "might have passed" is academic at this stage and unproductive. Why waste time on something so easily refuted? Negotiations were intense, and to get the needed votes they no doubt got as much as they could. I think a valid point you allude to is that Obama needs to get clearer and stronger in his rhetoric. He does operate very much as a Harvard professor chess player when we need to see much more of Obama the campaigner with the soaring speeches. There is a time to be Mr. Spock and a time to be Captain Kirk. You need Mr. Spock, but people are yearning to SEE Captain Kirk. (Yeah, I like the Star Trek analogy.)

[PVnRT]

36. Well, maybe you could come up with a list of things that we are supposed to care about

I want to make sure I have an approved opinion on approved issues so I don't offend you.

[MNBrewer]

59. So by this logic, Krugman should be advocating policies that would have no affect

or even be damaging, because that's all that can get through this Congress. That way he could be seen as "pragmatic". Except that ineffective measures aren't pragmatic. He should do exactly what he IS doing, and that's calling for measures that would be effective regardless of whether they could be enacted by this do-nothing Congress.

[RBInMaine]

10. I don't think getting louder will move this TeaBag House. Not that Obama and Dems shouldn't get

louder. They definitely should. Loud and tough. I agree. But it still won't move the whackos in the House.

[BeyondGeography]

19. I'm glad you say this

It would also help if the President used his ability to shape public opinion to remind voters that the Republicans have never been about fiscal responsibilty, that they invented huge government deficits, and that their present motives are to undermine the uses and role of government and weaken the economy so that they can return to power. Instead, he has embraced their bullshit arguments about the deficit being the top priority right now, which the smarter Republicans know not to be true.

It is unimaginably false to equate the parties as Obama has been doing. He doesn't have to give the Democrats a free pass, but he should always be explicit about placing the bulk of the blame on the Republicans. This is ideological war and he needs to lead the way. He hasn't.

[Empowerer]

37. Civil rights legislation passed because people were marching in the streets and forcing the courts

to change laws.

In other words, extreme external pressure was exerted on Congress - and society, in general.

While it's pleasant to "remember" that LBJ simply marched up to Congress and forced them to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, LBJ was responding to an incredible public wave. The pressure to pass this legislation came from the people. Absent that, Congress would NOT have moved these bills and there wasn't a damned thing LBJ could have done to make them.

Where were the people in the past couple of years? The loudest and most organized voices were on the right, not the left.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of Democrats sitting back and watching the President from the sidelines and then getting angry at him because we don't think he's doing enough - while we don't do anything other than talk at him and each other, as if that's going to effect change. Change is hard, politics is hard. It requires us to try to convince people who don't agree with us at all to shift their thinking and do something we want them to do. That's not easy. It's so much easier for us to demand that our President do it for us while we critique him from ringside . . . "GRAB HIM BY THE ANKLE!!!" Well, sometimes, we have to jump in the ring and hold down somebody's arms so that the President CAN grab him by the ankle.

And, fyi, the revisionism also extends back to John Kennedy, who was harshly criticized by the civil rights community for not doing enough on civil rights. The Civil Rights Act was going nowhere and Kennedy did little to push it until the March on Washington - and even then, he did not fight as hard for it as many felt he should.

[vi5]

7. So just because it won't pass...

that means they shouldn't speak about it or advocate for it?

Simply because it shouldn't pass they should just shrug their shoulders and not say "Hey, the fact is this is what we need and this will get us out of this situation or at least stop the bleeding."?

It's got nothing to do with how government works or not. It's got to do with informing people that we are on the wrong course and pointing out that nobody is government is pushing for or advocating the correct policies and the policies they are advocating are not working.

Maybe if more people knew that, then more people would be wiser with their voting next time and would push all of our leaders for the right solutions rather than not just settling for, but celebrating the wrong solutions.

And I'm not sure why it's bad to point out that the people who were right, are being left in the cold while the people who are wrong are still elected and appointed to cabinets and such.

[RBInMaine]

9. What solutions, specifically, do you think are not being advocated enough? List them please.

[trumad]

11. Wow

Simply Wow.

Ok....so now that you told is how gov works, we'll just keep quiet and be good little sheep.

What a douche ass thread.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

27. your fucking post reeks with how brlliant you think you are

How many times you going to mention taking a civics class.

Id say about 90 percent of DU agree with guys like Maher and Krugman....so...what..you think us DU'ers need to take a civics class.

[treestar]

63. Plenty of them do, as they talk the same way

Obama this and Obama that and refuse to consider Congress and its make-up at any time.

They just want the President to fix it all for them. Bring up Congress and get sneered at. So these people need to toughen up and be able to take criticism, too.

[woo me with science]

69. +1

How many times, indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=736133&mesg_id=736246

[verges]

70. Yeah. You did. In the OP.

At least that's what I got out of it. It seems that yo are saying that Maher and Krugman should just STFU because they obviously don't know haw government works and therefore can't possibly have any idea of how things should be. That may not be what you meant, but it's what I, and apparently many others, read.

[vi5]

15. Jobs programs, Infrastructure spending, extending unemployment...

It doesn't matter that they won't pass. It really doesn't. But more people need to be made aware that these are programs that will work, these are programs that historically all data shows works and that all history and data shows that austerity in a time of economic recession makes that recession worse. The people can't support the right policies and elect people who will enact them if they don't know about them.

Everyone who knows this to be true needs to be shouting it from the rooftops at every turn. Every person needs to be on tv every single day talking about this. Whether it will or will not pass congress is irrelevant. It still needs to be said and people need to be educated on this information. They need to know that austerity made the Depression worse and that the new deal and infrastructure spending and jobs programs got us out of it. They need to know that after the last recession in the early 90's, raising taxes on the wealthy and implementing jobs programs (like Americorps) and tighter federal regulations got us out of it and led to boom times.

If the President doesn't want to do it because he feels "Oh well. Never going to pass. No sense risking anything by advocating it." then that's his prerogative. But that doesn't mean that others who have a voice and a forum should not.

If Obama would rather tout the virtues of austerity and belt tightening and shared sacrifice (ha!) then he can do that. But I'm not sure why other people shouldn't point out the truth.

[RBInMaine]

17. Actually, TWO stimulus bills have already been passed. The first, and then another to

prevent teacher and other public service layoffs. Remember that? Obama has time and again said we need to continue to invest in research and development, education, and innovation to Win The Future. He has toured tech plant after tech plant giving speeches on this. It was the very theme of his last SOTU speech. He talks constantly about the need for critical investments. He has talked endlessly about the rich needing to pay their fair share. He lambasted the Ryan budget in public right to the guy's face. He has said over and again that he advocates critical investments in all of the above AND a new infrastructure bill. He has said it, is saying it, and will continue to do so next week at a plant in Michigan and going forward. He also has over and again that the rich need to pay their fare share of taxes, and he strongly and repeatedly advocates ending tax loopholes and subsidies for the rich and big corporations. What aren't you hearing?

[vi5]

32. O.K. so then what is the problem?

If you believe that (and I would say that is an extremely generous interpretation of how hard he has worked and how loudly he has advocated, but o.k. I'll play along) then what is the problem with Krugman and Maher saying the same thing? And what is the problem with them saying he needs to fight harder for it?

If the stimulus worked the first time (and it did) then he should be pointing out that now is the time for more stimulus not the time for austerity.

[Recursion]

51. Because "fight harder" doesn't mean anything. This isn't a tug of war or boxing match.

Obama going on TV and appearing angry doesn't do anything.

[treestar]

65. And if Sanders is such a hero

Why doesn't he advocate single payer on TV? Instead he just complains about Obama's handling of the matter, too.

[Nay]

18. Exactly. Dems need a strong narrative to present to the people, over and over

again. Repeat that narrative, repeat that narrative, on every sunday morning show, every press conference, etc. etc. Now, Obama's narrative is "we should meet halfway with pubs." That's no narrative, because it does not outline what Dems themselves want to advocate for.

[treestar]

64. We can all do that

Or encourage many people who have access to TV to do that.

The lazy thing is just depending on the President to do it all - and to happen to agree with you on every point.

No doubt the President works long hours - he would have many duties. Why don't the other Democrats support him? The ones most praised around here trash him when they get their access to TV, rather than asserting the things you say should be asserted.

[baldguy]

12. Do you understand how the govt REALLY works?

In a functional govt, two sides of opposing views come together and COMPROMISE. Each side gives a little to get a little. This govt can't do that! Mainly because of the influence of the Teabaggers.

Obama's failure is that he's acting like we still have a functional govt. Instead of starting negotiations for the stimulus package with what we actually needed, he started with a half of that - hoping the GOP would support it. Instead (of course) they cut that half in half again. And so (again, of course) the little stimulus worked only a little bit.

Now, think about a different scenario: Obama fights for a REAL stimulus: airports, passenger rail lines, roads, bridges & other infrastructure, and massive govt investment in the economy - along with the taxes on the rich & corporations to pay for it. What happens? It fails to pass.

THEN, IN 2010 OBAMA & THE DEMOCRATS RUN ON THE FACT THAT THE GOP IS FORCING THE RECESSION TO CONTINUE! And instead of losing seats in Congress, the Dems gain seats.

[RBInMaine]

21. He started with $1.2 TRILLION in stimulus. Do you really think he'd have gotten more? And, this

notion that he doesn't understand the TeaBagger mentality and the current make-up of the House is not true. He fully understands what they are and what their goals are. "Will they say yes to anything at all?" he asks in front of the cameras. Oh don't worry, he knows. Where I will agree is that he does need to get louder, more forceful, and get back to the soaring speeches on the need to Win The Future with investing in education and innovation and the need for a fair and balanced plan on deficit reduction over time. Make no mistake, Americans are a funny lot and Obama understands it. They want jobs and investment and Medicare, but they also was deficit reduction. He is trying to accommodate both, and the people by and large want BOTH.

[baldguy]

29. You're buying into the Teahadist's propaganda.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148589/concerns-economy-jobs-outweigh-worries-deficit.aspx

July 7-10, 2011: What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

31% Economy in general
27% Unemployment/Jobs
16% Federal budget deficit/debt

And the only reason that 16% is there is because they're same people that listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Faux Nooz & love Sarah Palin. They are not living in the real world. If Faux told them that red baseball socks was the biggest issue facing America, there would be that 16% parroting it right back to the polls.

The economy & jobs are the most important issues America faces, and the GOP - led by the Teabaggers - spend their time in Congress on everything but - even working to make things worse. And you wonder why people have a shitty outlook? They need leadership to get on the right track. WE need leadership. Not just some pretty words, but actions too. It's not gonna come from Congress. And so far, it's not coming from the White House either.

Obama is letting the Bully Pulpit gather dust.

[RBInMaine]

75. Oh HOGSHIT. You are living in fucking fantasy land if you think ANYTHING Obama says will get Tea-

Fucks to vote with him on ANYTHING. Sheesh.

[baldguy]

85. Have you understood ANY of the responses to your OP?

Progress in fighting against the Teahadists doesn't start with a victory - it starts with a defeat. And with a well-funded and well-organized corporate-fascist front group like the Tea Party, it probably starts with several defeats.

Victory comes when we use those defeats to expose the Tea Party for what it is. That action comes at the ballot box, and in Congress. I don't expect the Tea Party Republicans to vote for the real progressive political agenda that will move America forward out of the Bush Dark Ages - I expect their successors to.

Having Obama ignore that agenda - and the majority that supports it - to instead kowtow to the people who represent the biggest threat American democracy in it's history, and join them as partners in the governance of the country doesn't help. He should be working every day to make sure they don't get reelected, not playing golf with them.

[Stuckinthebush]

57. Ding Ding! We have a winner!

That, my friend, is 100% correct. Obama screwed up royally.

[RandomKoolzip]

13. I understand, but it's just intensely frustrating to take stock of the situation we're in

and say, "well, the most powerful man in the world can't do shit about it." Yes, it's naive to think he can do anything he wants, but we just endured 8 years of Bush getting everything he wanted, pushing a right-wing agenda that seemed to meet with no resistance whatsoever from the Dems during that time. Now, with the country in serious peril, to think that this guy, the President, can only watch and shake his head while the entire government is held hostage by a few hundred Repubs and blue dogs, is just....I mean, "frustrating" does not begin to describe what it feels like as a liberal to witness this. Also, knowing that ALL of the horror that's unfolding will be placed on Obama's shoulders - though he's not repsonsible for it - simply because our simplified conception of government boils down to "He's the President - he can do what he wants", and thus damning the Democrats to MORE electoral losses in the future as the voters take out their frustrations on incumbents, no matter who they are....yes, "frustrating" doesn't begin.

I understand how the process works, but yes, a large part of me WOULD like a benevolent, liberal, uh, "SEMI-dictator" who could simply ram through executive orders and set up a WPA-type jobs program, raise taxes, etc. I know it can't happen, and Obama's personal statements indicate he wants to do no such thing....but these are ery perilous times, and we kinda need someone with that kind of power right now, even if it countervenes the political process.

Like I said, it's very frustrating that the most powerful man in the world (why else would anyone want the position?) is so powerless. Nothing about this situation is satisfying to a liberal, and unfortunately, Obama's seeming impotence here will reflect poorly both on him and the Dems in the next few cycles. I wish it were not so.

[Recursion]

39. That's a myth about GWB

but we just endured 8 years of Bush getting everything he wanted

No, we didn't. Bush got his war, yes. And he got his tax cuts through on reconciliation (and was accused by his base of being spineless and caving because of that). Everything else was either triangulating (Medicare Part D, NCLB) or went nowhere (SS privatization, immigration reform). Also, it may be difficult to remember given the intervening decade, but the Homeland Security Department was initially pushed by Congressional Democrats and resisted by the Bush administration.

[dsc]

20. Obama should have changed his residency to Maine

and every single solitary time a business laid off so much as one worker he should have held a huge new conference laying the blame squarely at the feet of the Maine two until his stimulus was passed as is.

[RBInMaine]

23. Well, he visited Maine last summer and had a wonderful time. :-) But on your point, a larger

stimulus could not pass. Or, tell me how it could have. Remember, Obama is not the Congress.

[dsc]

26. He needed those two votes to pass it

I don't think they would have held out for months as Mainer after Mainer was laid off and being seen on the news as the President directly told them exactly who was to blame (ie the two Maine Senators). Yes it would have taken time to pass but it would have passed.

[Enrique]

22. Obama told the dems in Congress to cut a deal on the stimulus

Obama's the one that told Harry Reid to cut the deal with Joe Lieberman and Judd Gregg.

Did Harry Reid have to do what Obama told him? No. As Reid himself said when Obama took office, the Senate is independent of the White House, Obama is not Harry Reid's boss. That pissed off a lot of DUers, but it's true. Unfortunately, Reid went along with Obama on everything.

[RBInMaine]

24. Well, let's not do too much second guessing here as to who said what. But yes, you cut a deal to

actually get bills passed and get something accomplished. That is called compromise and it is how you actually get things done in the world.

[Enrique]

25. Reid wanted to fight for more

Reid's not the type of guy to fight for something it's impossible to get. He thought he could get more, Obama said no, let's take what they're giving us now.

[ibegurpard]

28. It's quite clear that our government DOES NOT work

when 70% of the public is in favor of something and the "compromise" ends up doing just the opposite.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283

That really says it all.

[BklnDem75]

46. Keep selling that lie

Everyone knows the pukes are trying to dismantle SS, but please keep helping them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. +1 You are EXACTLY right. And taking all the emotion out..Obama

had absolutely zero leverage on this debt deal either. The only thing he could hold
over their heads was default as the clock was running out. All through the ordeal
leading up to the end, Boehner kept his caucus united against revenue hikes. So,
it is clear as mud...he couldn't pass a revenue hike without the HOUSE...simple math

It would be good if we took all this negative energy we have and put it to
good use - like working to take back the House. But, it is easier just to complain.

[Enrique]

33. he had the 14th amendment as leverage

and Biden said they had agreed to use it. Why didn't they?

[Recursion]

41. Yeah, another impeachment is not what we need right now

If you think the debt ceiling deal caused chaos, that's nothing compared to what that would have done. Plus, the 14th Amendment really doesn't let him authorize new debt. It just doesn't -- I would have supported removing him from office if he had done it.

[Enrique]

43. there's no basis whatsoever for that fear

not only Biden, but many other non-radical dems like Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn and Bill Clinton and many others supported the idea.

Fears of impeachment are fantasies imo, and there is definitely no reason to be so sure of it as you sound in your post.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

80. not true "leverage"....option yes. Leverage is when you have control

of something the other side doesn't want you to do. the other side would have loved it
if Obama took full ownership and used the 14th... IMHO

[PVnRT]

34. Fuck's sake

Is it really that hard for you hardcore support-Obama-at-all-costs people to understand that people like Krugman are arguing for something that they believe SHOULD happen, regardless of the possibility of it happening? Or do you just fly off the rails when you see someone suggest that your hero isn't doing things right?

Yeah, we all know how the fucking system works. I guess it's easier to roll out MIDDLE SCHOOL CIVICS bullshit than actually come up with a response to the argument.

[Recursion]

40. "regardless of the possibility of it happening"

That's probably the difference: I don't like seeing time and energy being wasted like that.

[wolfgirl]

35. Obama keeps trying, he has been very consistent on

his message about what he wants to do...but as you pointed out, the first 2 years despite all the progressive bills pushed through the House, they died in the Senate due to the GOP filibustering everything. It's absolutely amazing that Obama was able to get accommplished the few things he has (and it's quite a list).

Now that GOP has the House, nothing productive is coming to the Senate - but it wouldn't matter because the GOP continues to filibuster.

WE need to assure that 2012 election brings DEMS to the House and Senate in such numbers as to provide Obama with filibuster proof majority in the Senate and return the House to the previous majority numbers. If WE get this done, Obama will actually be able to deliver on the change he so wants to enact for us.

I, too, am absolutely stunned at the lack of understanding of what has been happening and the continued attacks on Obama by everyone.


So, OUR task is to support progressive leaders and assure the GOP/TP folks are soundly defeated!!

[Empowerer]

38. Well done . . .

[boston bean]

42. 4 words Obama has never spoken---- Up Or Down Vote!

[Empowerer]

48. So he says it . . . then what? n/t

[Recursion]

49. *facepalm*

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Obama+%22up+or+down+vote%22

Seriously, you can do better.

[jeff47]

44. You are 100% wrong.

You don't start with what can pass. You start with what's right. Then you whip the votes and push public opinion towards it.

Under your theory, it was stupid to pursue the New Deal, Great Society and Civil Rights Act. None had the votes to pass when the President started pushing for them.

Could they get a stimulus bill through? Yes, form a coalition of the D's and the R's in vulnerable seats. It won't be as big as required, but it has the benefit of fracturing the Republicans.

But it doesn't matter if it passes. Pushing for a stimulus bill means voters learn the Republicans are saying "no" to fixing the economy. Sitting on our hands because "it can't pass" means the voters learn the Democrats are saying "no" to fixing the economy. We don't want the latter at election time, like in 2010.

[Recursion]

50. FDR had Congressional majorities 3 times the size of Obama's (nt)

[jeff47]

52. And they didn't like the New Deal when he proposed it

As we just demonstrated 2009-2010, having a majority doesn't mean passing all the bills you want.

[Recursion]

53. It had broad bipartisan support

Northeastern Republicans liked it because it was (at least at the onset) essentially progressive legislation and Republicans were still the progressive party (though the meaning of "progressive" has shifted somewhat in the interim). The few remaining Bourbon Democrats were more or less on board, with some reservations, and so were Boll Weevils -- though at the cost of preventing most New Deal programs from helping minorities.

[jeff47]

54. In the end it did.

That's kinda my point.

[madinmaryland]

47. Krugman has been saying what NEEDS to be done for the last three years.

That is different than saying what will pass. And he has been correct about what NEEDS and has NEEDED to be done. There are a lot of things that DUer's say that NEED to be done, but obviously will not get done due to the teabaggers.

Just because Krugman says we need another stimulus, does not change the FACT that we DO NEED another stimulus. We also NEED to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. NEEDING to do something is not the same as actually passing legislation to make it happen.

[RBInMaine]

73. Fine, but it's academic only. At some point we must focus on what can PASS.

[madinmaryland]

82. If we focused on what can PASS, then NOTHING will PASS. Oh wait...

[DevonRex]

55. Either they don't or they're just trying to make money. Nt

[treestar]

60. They just talk out of their asses

A President is an easy focus. Congress complicates matters, so they don't delve into that. The rules and procedures of Congress are boring and hard to understand. Face it, these people are entertainers. They could not do a real political analysis of any kind.

[flamingdem]

72. It would have been nice had they attacked the supposed traits of Bush all those years

but they were more indirect if memory serves.

[verges]

67. Just because something can't pass, doesn't mean

that it's not what's needed! And if nobody says it's what's needed, it certainly won't ever pass, because nobody even brought it up. Silence doesn't really work that well here. Somebody needs to keep on pinging on these things! If not a Nobel Laureate like Krugman, then who? You're right about governing being the art of the possible. However, neither Maher or Krugman are members of Congress. Their job is to point out the possibilities and lost opportunities. We cannot move forward without SOMEBODY pointing the way.

BTW. There was no Bill to end the Bush tax cuts. They were set to expire by themselves. That was written into the original law. A Bill had to be passed to renew them! And the reason they were renewed was more about unemployment benefits rather than middle class tax cuts.

[RBInMaine]

74. No, a bill WAS written to extend ONLY the middle class cuts, and it FAILED in the Senate.

[flamingdem]

71. The worst is Maher who as "just a comedian" gets a chance to trash Obama w/o repercussions

and those of us who like his humor, me included usually, get his poorly conceived vitriol inserted at every turn these days.

[Stargleamer]

78. Look up the word "haggle"

All Krugman ever stated was that Obama didn't ask for enough to begin with. If he asked for a bigger stimulus to begin with, it could have been pared down but to something bigger than what we got. If you say no way would that have happened, well Krugman I think would counter as saying a bigger (and rather different) stimulus is what we needed, so Obama should have at least tried. I think he blamed Obama for not trying. Krugman is well aware that Obama had conservative extremists as well as Ben Nelson to deal with.

Also, Obama DID cave in on tax cuts for the wealthy; if he had held firm Republicans would likely have suffered from the political fallout of their obstinacy. They suffered no political fallout for their obstinacy when Obama caved so quickly. Imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton had gave in to the Republicans so easily regarding the budget--again they would have suffered no political fallout.

[Bake]

79. So let's see ... when we had the majorities in both houses plus the WH, we couldn't do antything

because the mean ol' Rethugs might filibuster.

Now we still have the Senate, but they control only the House, so of course we can't do anything.

How the hell did the minority become so powerful? When Clinton was faced with a GOP majority in both houses of Congress, did the Dem minority control everything the way the Pukes do now? No.

Here's the facts: our Dems in Congress are WEAK. SPINELESS. Our President is a pushover. LBJ is rolling over in his grave.

Bake

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. The short answer? NO!! Add Frank Rich, Jon Stewart, Jane Hampsher, Cenk Unger

to that long list!

[themaguffin]

84. for the 1,000th time, Krugman is not a politician, he

is an economist and he comments on the economy and economic policy and what should be done.

Political reality may or may not make such policies possible, but that doesn't mean that they still aren't needed.