Krugman- Celebrating Defeat

[n2doc]

April 9, 2011, 2:13 PM

Ezra Klein gets this right, I think: it’s one thing for Obama to decide that it was better to give in to Republican hostage-taking than draw a line in the sand; it’s another for him to celebrate the result. Yet that’s just what he did. More than that, he has now completely accepted the Republican frame that spending cuts right now are what America needs.

It’s worth noting that this follows just a few months after another big concession, in which he gave in to Republican demands for tax cuts. The net effect of these two sets of concessions is, of course, a substantial increase in the deficit.

I also think that Ezra is right that the Obama people are counting on a growing economy to pull them through. In fact, I think that’s been their strategy since the January 2010 State of the Union, when Obama shifted his focus from any effort to boost the economy and started talking about spending freezes. The judgment was apparently that it was OK to move policy in the wrong direction, because the economy was strong enough to weather the shock, and that it was more important to look centrist than to defend good policy.

Of course, that didn’t work out too well last year, did it?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/celebrating-defeat/
(emphasis mine)

[bvar22]

1. WooHoo....We LOST again!

We're ALL Republicans NOW!!!
:party:

Obama should put down the Reagan books,
and start reading some FDR/LBJ.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Whiny Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[roguevalley]

58. given those numbers there are only two reasons why Obama is

so happy about this: 1) he's really a republican and holds many of their ideas dressed up in a more socially acceptable package or 2) he's a coward.

[spooked911]

96. I think Noam Chomsky is right, when he calls Obama what 30 years ago

would be called a "moderate republican".

[mochajava666]

106. I think both

[susanr516]

108. They used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans"

back when I was a kid. I've always thought that was where Obama fell in the old political spectrum. Of course, I really didn't see a lot of difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton back in 2008. Neither one of them are anywhere close to progressive.

[ThomCat]

119. Yes! I've been saying for quite some time that He is Really a Republican.

We need to keep hammering this point. More people need to keep stating the obvious.

If he keeps supporting Republican ideas.

If he keeps celebrating Republican Victories.

If he keeps pushing Republican bills.

If he keeps letting Republicans frame issues and debates
So that Republicans have every advantage

If he keeps giving in to Republicans in every negotiation while steadfastly refusing to fight for the Democratic left he supposedly represents.

If he abandons the very ideas of helping the unemployed, and never delivers national jobs programs, national infrastructure reconstruction acts, repairs to our safety nets, or any of the other necessary democratic policy goals, WHILE he is instead embracing so many Republican issues and goals like tax and spending cuts during the nation's worst financial crisis in a century, and war as a first choice in foreign policy, and wall street firms as policy advisers even after all the damage they caused, etc.,

Then he is a Republican!

He is a Republican President.

He is working for, and towards what can only be described as a Moderate, Corporate-backed, Republican Agenda.

He is not, nor has he been a Democrat since he took office.

All of those progressive and liberal and even populist advisers and spokespersons he had with him while he was on the campaign trail during his campaign for president were all dismissed well before his inauguration, and never seen again.

All the talk from the left that endeared him to so many was advised and coached to him by those people he no longer had any use for anymore once he actually got elected. So he got rid of them, and instead he immediately brought in his administration advisers who immediately steered him administration far to the right. Where it has been throughout its term.

He Kept Republicans in place. He brought in Goldman Sachs executives in key positions, to such an extent that his administration was called the Goldman Sach administration, and Goldman Sach effectively took over the US Dept of the Treasury.

It should have been no surprise when he announced that there would be no investigations into the war crimes and domestic wrong-doing by the previous administration, because he left so many of their people in place. An investigation would have been impossible because of conflicts of interest. An investigation would have been impossible because the policies that led to the wrong-doing were deliberately left in place. The people who were put in charge of those policies were the ones who would have been either doing the investigations, or at least participating in them.

All of this showed us that he was a continuation of the previous Republican administration in far too many ways that we were not prepared for, and did not want or vote for. Yet, that is what happened.

Obama even got a Nobel Peace Prize he did nothing to earn solely because he was supposedly not another Republican President, and not George W. Bush. But instead, he is another Republican President, and he is continuing far too much of the legacy of George W. Bush's presidency. From war, to torture, to spying, to No Child Left Behind, to giving unlimited financial recovery money from the government to wall street with no strings attached, to stonewalling investigations into where the real fraud and responsibility for the crisis is, etc.

He won't pay for his bad decisions. Millions of Poor and Middle Class Americans will. We thought we were voting for someone who voting for someone who would finally represent us, and we were wrong.

[femrap]

59. I think he should read

'The Handmaid's Tale' and '1984.' Or maybe he already has and wants to implement their ideas.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

87. WANA CUT... CUT THE MILITARY STAR WARS AND RAY GUN PROGRAMS

MAYBE THROUGH IN A FEW GOLF COURSES

[highplainsdem]

2. K&R

[Logical]

3. The GOP wants the economy to be horrible come 2012! n-t

[emulatorloo]

5. Absolutely. It is the center of their election strategy n/t

[Orrex]

7. And when it continues to be horrible during and after 2012

they'll blame it on the Left, and they'll demand (and get) more permanent tax cuts for the rich.

[Logical]

12. So true! n-t

[MilesColtrane]

57. If things don't get better, they won't have to demand.

They'll be in the driver's seat after Nov. 6th.

[Enthusiast]

37. Their efforts to cost

Americans jobs will do the trick.

[napoleon_in_rags]

114. Cui Bono from the economy being horrible in 2008?

The high spending low tax Bush policies put them there. Now they believe low tax with less spending will put Obama in a worse place? Then what will they do when they get in? I don't buy it.

[Daphne08]

126. That's exactly what they want! n/t

[emulatorloo]

4. There is some good stuff in the Ezra Klien piece Krugman cites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2011-is-not-1995/2011/04/06/AFxPaT5C_blog.html

<SNIP>


And policy defeats are what will matter. The Obama White House is looking toward the Clinton model. After all, Clinton also suffered a major setback in his first midterm, Clinton also faced down a hardline Republican Congress, Clinton also suffered major policy defeats, and yet Clinton, as the story goes, managed to co-opt the conservative agenda and remake himself into a successful centrist. The Obama administration has even hired many of Clinton’s top aides to help them recapture that late-90s magic.

That story misses something important: Clinton’s success was a function of a roaring economy. The late ‘90s were a boom time like few others -- and not just in America. The unemployment rate was less than 6 percent in 1995, and fell to under 5 percent in 1996. Cutting deficits was the right thing to do at that time. Deficits should be low to nonexistent when the economy is strong, and larger when it is weak. The Obama administration’s economists know that full well. They are, after all, the very people who worked to balance the budget in the 1990s, and who fought to expand the deficit in response to the recession.

Right now, the economy is weak. Giving into austerity will weaken it further, or at least delay recovery for longer. And if Obama does not get a recovery, then he will not be a successful president, no matter how hard he works to claim Boehner’s successes as his own. Clinton’s speeches were persuasive because the labor market did a lot of his talking for him. But when unemployment is stuck at eight percent, there’s no such thing as a great communicator.

<SNIP>

[pscot]

11. Thanks for the link

:hi:

[chervilant]

78. ALREADY,

Obama is NOT a successful president. Furthermore, we haven't seen the worst of this 'Great Recession" that most pundits now discuss in the past tense. Indeed, this catastrophic GLOBAL economic distress is FAR from over.

Watching the hoi polloi pick sides, and lob verbal grenades at each other, as though our corporatist-driven political and/or religious ideologies are the most important framework within which we coexist on this planet, remains both disappointing and unsettling. I must constantly remind myself that our species is evolving; that every spiritual and intellectual milestone is a measurable step forward.

At least, that is what I STILL choose to believe, even as I witness relentless and myriad expressions of pure-dee dumb-assedness.

[tomp]

98. correct on all levels, as far as i can see. thanks. nt

[leveymg]

118. The biggest difference '12 vs '96 - there's no dotcom bubble pushing recovery.

The only unexploded bubble today is in public debt issues. Someone, somewhere, soon is going to make a huge killing going short on T-Bills and Munis.

[Karmadillo]

6. These days, if we don't celebrate our defeats, we won't have anything to celebrate.

nt

[indepat]

8. The chaos and economic devastation junior visited upon this nation are again being visited upon us

with fully fury, vengeance, and malice of forethought and Dems are either powerless to stop it or fully complicitous. :patriot:

[tomp]

99. really? nafta and the repeal of galss-stiegal....

....had NOTHING to do with it? clinton had a big hand in where we stand now and to misinterpret or forget that speaks of a profound bias. the reason for that bias only you would know.

[vi5]

9. Ezras opinion on this is telling to me...

I don't always agree with him, since he's usually much more pragmatic and long range thinking than I tend to be. He's always well thought out and persuasive but he's much more of a middle of the road, glass half fully type of guy when it comes to Democratic politics.

So that fact that he is viewing this deal, or more specifically Obama's and Reid's reaction to it with such negative, cynical eyes just makes me more adamant in my belief that this deal is yet another shit sandwich that the Obama admin expects us to eat with a smile.

The main point, is that one highlighted line. "He has now completely accepted the Republican frame".

This is true about tax cuts.
This is true about supply side/trickle down economics.
This is true about healthcare.
This is true about the deficit.

I just don't know any more whether this is to believe that the president and his team are actively complicit or just ridiculously naive and entrenched in beltway insider village media mentality.

[sabrina 1]

90. Maybe he always did! 'accept the Republical frame'

He seems very comfortable telling people it's too bad that there have to be 'painful cuts' but it's for their 'children's future'. No remorse, empathy, it's just business to him. Same thing when he admits he would not want his daughters to go through the naked scanners, but for the rest of us? Well, it's necessary! He appears to think he's above it all, like so many of them. I guess I was hoping he'd be different, but he isn't.

I wish Bernie Sanders could run, but it would be a waste of time, the WH is so not available to anyone who might actually be for the people.

We have to focus on Congress, that is our only hope.

[tomp]

101. all the evidence points to complicit.

no one who gets to that level doesn't know the game. and look at who he has picked for his advisors.

suck ass trojan horse, no two ways about it.

[vi5]

120. And that's the main thing for me....

..every time I manage to get suckered by the chorus of "It's the Senate!!! It's the House!!!! He would love to do all these things, but poor little Obama is just being stonewalled by the big bad Republicans!!" and think "Hmmmm...well maybe that's true." Then I think about Summers, and Geitner, and Duncan, and Messina, and Emmanuel, and keeping on Gates and keeping on Bernake and pretty much every person he surrounds himself, and then for good measure throw in completely shutting out Dean for any advisory or cabinet position......yeah. I think all of that should tell me all I need to know about whether he's a left of center or a right of center politician.

[xchrom]

10. celebrating defeat. nt

[ProSense]

13. Details of the

deal

What the hell did Krugman and others thing was going to be the end result of these negotiations?

Republicans control the House and even shutting down the government would not have ended the negotiations, no more than it did in 1996.

They talk as if the President simply stood his ground, the Republicans would give up. They'd simply wait out the shut down and when people were hurting enough, force more compromises.




Edited for clarity.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

16. What did Dems think was going to happen when they neglected to pass a budget?

They had the House, Senate, and WH.

We could have had a budget deal totally on our terms.

It appears to me that Dem leadership wanted this debacle.

[ProSense]

20. That would be a good question

for the Democrats who are complaining about this deal.

Why no budget last year?

[spedtr90]

53. Remember the lame duck spending bill? Is there a budget now?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/omnibus-hypocrisy/
Republicans got theatrical and lied. Dems message was lost again.

Democrats need to get behind Jan Schakowsky­'s plan and craft a budget with the tax increases that 80% of Americans support and the end of corporate subsidies most people want. Republican­s- who cry over America's exceptiona­lism- are insulting the country every time they say we're broke and that we have to destroy the country to fix it. We were deeper in debt (as % of GDP) in the past and solved it without throwing anyone under a Tea Party bus. Democrats in Congress grow a pair, show some unity, push Bachmann aside and get in front of cameras with some truth and common sense. Marginaliz­e the Tea Party/Repu­blicans by getting the message to the people. Don't let that radical minority control the message. Crash the tea party and break some dishes.”

[spedtr90]

54. Remember the lame duck spending bill? Is there a budget now?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/omnibus-hypocrisy/
Republicans got theatrical and lied. Dems message was lost again.

Democrats need to get behind Jan Schakowsky­'s plan and craft a budget with the tax increases that 80% of Americans support and the end of corporate subsidies most people want. Republican­s- who cry over America's exceptiona­lism- are insulting the country every time they say we're broke and that we have to destroy the country to fix it. We were deeper in debt (as % of GDP) in the past and solved it without throwing anyone under a Tea Party bus. Democrats in Congress grow a pair, show some unity, push Bachmann aside and get in front of cameras with some truth and common sense. Marginaliz­e the Tea Party/Repu­blicans by getting the message to the people. Don't let that radical minority control the message. Crash the tea party and break some dishes.”

[HankyDubs]

60. really? I think it's a question you should answer

considering your adoration of the party establishment.

Do you have an answer, or are you just asking the same thing that right wingers have been asking me all week?

[HankyDubs]

74. its not a trick question

there is an answer! Our friends in the middle are so gaddam savvy and oh so clever, I cant imagine why they can't figger it out.

[tavalon]

105. Well, you can't have good theater unless all the players know their parts.

Our President and Congress and even our Supreme court know their parts in this play. Where the only one's having to use suspension of disbelief in this scenario.

[russspeakeasy]

113. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[PurityOfEssence]

133. Damn good point: they were being timid and evasive in the face of politics, and got kablooied

Not to mention, that for all that, they ALSO lost the election.

This namby-pamby fniff-fnuffing around the issues to not annoy anybody ANNOYS EVERYBODY. This is not synchronized swimming, it's water polo.

Obama and others keep thinking that if they're just not too disagreeable, people will like them. That's pure hogwash: their opponents get charged up and convinced they can roll all over them, and their allies are incensed with the accommodating.

Even if Obama suddenly became FDR and stood fast on things, they'd still be emboldened and play him for a marshmallow; reactionaries make their minds up about things and don't change them, and they've labeled him as "weak". Being bullies, too, they just trample the weak. I don't see how any amount of steadfastness will stop them now.

[theaocp]

22. This is nuts

So, when pukes are in charge, they get what they want.
And when dems are in charge, pukes get what they want.

Under what scenario do pukes NOT get what they want?

[saorsa]

52. + 1000

[totodeinhere]

80. If you can come up with that scenario please let us know. n/t

[Raksha]

130. Under the scenario where the peasants get their pitchforks...

and USE them!!!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

135. in the scenario where the liberals and progressives starts to work harder to get

like-minded people elected to both the house and senate.

Its basically the *only* surefire way to get what you want. elect proper left leaning people(no blue dogs and equivalent) in sufficient numbers so that any deals made require their participation. That basically means a continued effort to get people elected locally, state and nationally and not sitting out.

If that is done then it wouldn't matter even if the president was a tea-bagger since the bills et all sent to the tea-bagger president would be on the correct side of the political spectrum.

[eilen]

25. All they have to do is rattle their swords and Obama folds like cheap lawn furniture

We will never know what might have happened if there was a good honest down and dirty fight. This Democratic administration lacks the will and the balls.

[Tatiana]

28. "They talk as if the President simply stood his ground, the Republicans would give up."

Yeah. I think that's what a significant portion of us were thinking. You can't say concretely that the Republicans wouldn't have backed down because we've never really called their bluff, have we? I think Reid, Murry and others set up the Republicans very well on Friday to take the fall for a government shutdown over their extreme and radical ideological agenda.

The Republicans would have been blamed... by almost a million federal workers and a good chunk of the American military fighting overseas. We could have won this battle if we had the courage to stand firm. It sounded like the Senate Dems were ready to do so and Pelosi's statement put out last night certainly didn't seem to celebrate the one-week deal at all. I think the Congressional Dems were ready to stand firm as well.

This deal has the President's stamp all over it. I'm so sick of his negotiating (if you can call it that). He sees himself as the sensible parent mediating between two wayward children (one of whom is getting away with murder everytime he mediates).

[neoralme]

33. Excellent post. I'm starting to think he thinks his presidency is

some kind of dress rehearsal. IMO, he just gave up the chance to slaughter Republicans in 2012. Now, if the Republicans play their Rove cards right, they should take all branches of government, except maybe the presidency, which is now a push.

[neoralme]

34. Dupe

[high density]

62. Yup, we never call their bluff

The GOP gets ready to leap off a cliff and then Obama is there to offer a hand and sing Kumbayah with them. Then he celebrates victory!

[HankyDubs]

31. yeah we all know by now

that the president isn't with us.

It's hard to say what would happen if the president stood "his ground." We haven't seen it happen yet.

[liberation]

46. Yes we have seen him standing "his ground" before...

... he was pretty forceful when it came to get those moneys for Iraq and Afghanistan, wasn't he?

[HankyDubs]

61. you sound like a professional leftist

and therefore your point is irrellevant.

[neoralme]

32. Had the government shut down, the public would have blamed it

on the Republicans and the effect would have been the same as when Gingrich did it. Now, the VOTING public will look at Republicans as quasi heroes--even if what they did is not in their best interest. And the Republicans will pick up the Senate and score more members in the House. As far as the presidency goes, I think Obama may slip in barely. But as far as your last statement goes: "they's simply wait out the shut down and when people..." etc, etc, that's the very last thing they would do. The number one thing the Republicans were worried about was a shutdown coming back to haunt them. They now have clear sailing to do whatever they want to. Republicans all over the country are celebrating another victory--maybe their biggest!!

[sulphurdunn]

43. The Republicans

wish only to loot the treasury and to capture government for the benefit of the people who bankroll them. That means taking more from a shrinking working class and giving it to the rich. The Democrats have a lip lock on the Republican's collective ass, knowing they will get the crumbs that fall from their master's table. If the Democrats had a hundred seat majority in the House and a ninety seat majority in the Senate they'd still sell out.

[sendero]

97. More of the..

.. "he had no choice" bullshit. I'll tell you what - I don't mind defeat so long as there is a fight. Obama fights for NOTHING.

[napoleon_in_rags]

116. Agreed.

This is the end result of allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue, there was no other way. You either raise taxes or you cut spending. Continuing to go deeper into the hole is the worst of all worlds. The focus should be on resetting back to the Clinton era tax structure, with its lack of debt.

[caseymoz]

128. A shutdown would have worked in the Dems favor.

As it did before. It's the Repubs who run on "smaller government" and fiscal responsibility. You can't get smaller than none, and you can't get more "responsible" than spending zero.

Yes, the President should have stood his ground, giving some only when people began to notice the absence of government. As it is, he has perpetuated the myth and has kept the Republican vision alive for them.

It doesn't matter that they "wouldn't give up" after a shutdown. They wouldn't have been able to "force" more compromises worse than this. Their tea partiers would have evaporated once their fantasy about smaller government became a reality.

You've bought into a delusion of constant weakness that lost the dems Congress in 2010 and that's going to lose this election in again in 2012. Except perhaps, Obama, who's using people like you to cover his ass. If the repubs had one strong candidate, he would be packing his bags from the White House in 2013.

[Zorra]

15. YAY! We snatched a crushing defeat from the jaws of a less disastrous defeat.

How bad can it get from here?

Awful to think about it.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

17. how exactly did Obama give in? the Repukes are the ones who failed to get their demands.

[eilen]

26. Hmm, repbubs asked for 32, dems gave 38 nt

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

30. Repubs wanted 61. at least get your facts straight.

[eilen]

50. I stand corrected. What I meant was that Democrats

said absolutely no more than $33B and they settled for $38.5B plus allowed some politically motivated riders

Boy, they really know how to draw a line....


But what's a few billion here and there?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

86. the gave up 5 billion more in cuts but nearly all of the riders were removed.

[eilen]

109. Yet, we don't know all the details of what is getting cut.

I fancy it won't be tax givebacks to GE.

[totodeinhere]

81. The GOP knew they couldn't get that Planned Parenthood rider and some of those other

extreme measures through. They used that as a bargaining tool. They could be seen to give in on that so they could get more spending cuts than the Democrats were originally willing to agree to.

Democrats complained bitterly about the first $10 billion in cuts, but eventually said they could not go above $33 billion. The final deal calls for $38.5 billion in cuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/budget-battle-gop-wins-round-one_n_847101.html

[Tatiana]

18. This economy is very fragile, IMO. We are looking at a likely contraction of the economy now.

Given all these cuts, especially to people who actually immediately spend and circulate money into the economy, we are probably going to see a double dip.

And yes, Krugman is also right in that it was very galling to hear Obama sell this as some sort of victory. It was another defeat and if we keep losing these battles with the right, we are going to end up losing the war and letting all hell break loose on the poor and working class Americans (we are very close to that right now).

[PA Democrat]

29. The problem will be compounded by state budget cuts.

I'm not optimistic either. I hope I am wrong.

[Tatiana]

41. Exactly. When you factor in state budget cuts to programs, it really spells disaster. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

82. I don't think $38 billion is large enough to affect the economy

Economists usually say it takes at least $250 billion to have an effect either way.

[eilen]

110. Well, add that to the tax cuts --lost revenue

and the lost tax base of industry off shoring.

None of these are coming back.

If you think Obama is going to let the tax cuts end your are blowing smoke up your own skirt. (to mix a metaphor).

[labor4ever]

19. That is one thing they are good at. The real question is how much more? Rebubs want Trillions.

I see many more cuts to our entitlements, and tax hikes for the non-rich.

I don't see any force capable of stopping them at this point.

[moondust]

21. Well, he is dealing with economic terrorists.

Repeatedly taking hostages, making wild demands. Under those circumstances I don't know what is even possible.

[creon]

23. Republicans won the election.

Consequences.

[spedtr90]

51. some doesn't equal all

Sure, "the people spoke", but they didn't all say the same thing. Republicans won some seats. They don't get the rest by default just because they have majority in one house. The only consequence is they have more voices than before. Everyone else doesn't have to shut up.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but I am so tired of "elections have consequences".

[creon]

95. They do not

Everyone else does not need to shut up.

This is what can be expected when there is a divided government.

[Wounded Bear]

24. I wouldn't mind so much if the term "centrist".....

hadn't drifted so fucking far to the right.

Under the current paradigm, Nixon would be a flaming liberal.

:shrug:

[somone]

27. Defeat? Nonsense. We're Winning The Future.

[Jakes Progress]

35. It keeps coming back to whether Obama

is not very bright or is not very Democrat-like.

[cui bono]

36. Obama IS a Republican.

There's really no way around it. People celebrate HCR even though he caved on everything at the beginning, never fought for public option and it's basically a Republican plan. His appointments of wall street and corporate execs all over the place were not in line with what the Democratic Party's platform. He is pro-war. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the filthy rich. He does more illegal wire-tapping than Bush. He sends out more drones than Bush.

I mean come on.

Sick of this change that is making this government more and more corporate owned.

[JDPriestly]

38. Obama is not able to deal with the economic situation, with the flack

from big business interests or with the Republicans.

He should announce that he is abandoning his campaign for the good of the country.

Judging from the conservative swing in the Midwest, he cannot win in 2012. He should have the good judgment and grace to give the Democratic Party a chance to rebuild itself. Running on his record will destroy our party.

There is no way he should run. He does not stand up for America or Americans. His policies on education, the economy, jobs, unions, health care, everything are just aimed to blame Americans for the horrible situation we are in thanks to the Republican wars and trade policy.

Obama should step aside as LBJ did.

The polls may show him up, but that is an illusion based on the fact that the alternative of the Republican candidates who have shown their faces thus far is just dismal. Obama should not depend on that. It is not enough to get him elected.

There are times when the right thing to do is to give up. And Obama should at this point.

[julian09]

44. Obama will be different in a second term

He needs the middle to get there. He won't have to worry about reelection. He needs a more progressive dem congress willing to help him no blue dogs.

[liberation]

47. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or actually serious.

[TK421]

71. sarcasm...I think they just forgot the tag n/t

[donheld]

84. I have a bridge to sell you

[eilen]

111. How hard is it to poll better than the party

that wants to gut Medicare just as the Baby Boomers are looking to retire? Republicans might as well run on killing puppies.

[kentuck]

39. Someone is whispering to the President...

...that the only thing that matters is whether or not people are working. If the unemployment rate is low, everything else is forgotten. Everything you do must be toward the goal of bringing down the unemployment rate.

Sir, someone is giving you bad advice.

[BrklynLiberal]

40. Obama Still doing the Charlie Brown /Lucy thingie.

Put the repuke face of your choice on the Lucy character.....

[liberation]

49. I dunno about that

The MO works better if you put him as Lucy... and a big chunk of his base as Charlie Brown

[saorsa]

56. oh ouch + 50000k

[BrklynLiberal]

64. hmmmmm. Food for thought....

[tomp]

102. agreed. nt

[BlueCheese]

42. Maybe I've been reading too much Civil War history.

It seems that the Democrats are being led by McClellan when who we need is Grant or Sherman. At one point, an impatient Lincoln supposedly said, "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time." But I don't think even McClellan celebrated defeats.

The Democrats failed to fight in December on the tax cut issue when they held the upper hand--big Congressional majorities and the public on their side. Thus there was little chance they'd fight now, when the opposition was much stronger and the ground not as favorable (though still even).

[BrklynLiberal]

65. +1000. They blew their advantage..big time, by not pushing hard in December...or even September.

BEFORE the elections!!!! If the Dems had shone some backbone, perhaps the repukes would not have won the House.

[eilen]

112. The President clearly showed he did not have the

Democratic Congress' back in Dec. He undermines them.

[DeSwiss]

45. K&R

- REVOLUTION

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security......

http://www.friendsacrossamerica.com/declaration.html">THE REST

[libmom74]

91. +1000

[dotymed]

93. Absolutely right. The Founding Fathers

were very prescient in this document. I usually do not support Revolution, rather mass demonstrations. The Demonstrations in WI. are brave and now, drawn out to the point of losing their "maximum 48 hour news cycle."
Revolution is the only answer to "change we deserve" instead of more for the wealthy.
Our President, now appears to be an idiot. Although I suspect he is a part of the network of the PTB and never had any intention of helping America, only helping himself into a very exclusive (he thinks) club of the shapers of society for the wealthy. I suspect that there is a politburo higher than that which he has attained and that he will never enter that door.
He "compromises with the PTB" to inflict harsh austerity measures on a country that has already been plundered (hard for the last 12 years) and after his "last minute" compromise with scum, he brags about the accomplishment that you and I will have to suffer through. Not one of those wealthy politicians will be affected.
Their salaries should have been lowered to the "average income level" of Americans first off. They should be barred from the use of any other monies while in office. This would have given them a whole different perspective on our Austerity while the wealthy add to their coffers.
REVOLT AMERICANS, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE AVAILABLE TO US.
Feudalism has officially been foisted on us. Sure, the Dr,'s in the "kingdom" earn more than the laborers, you are still serfs, perhaps self deluded ones, or "I've got mine,ones's but....

[bhikkhu]

48. After the last election. spending cuts were inevitable

when a bunch of 'baggers get swept into office on a "cut spending" and "we're all doomed because of deficits" platform, and when the whole rest of the repugs take up the cause without question, it inevitable that we'd have spending cuts. In a democracy, you can't just ignore half of the elected representatives and push anything through, and even if you could it would be wrong - whether its us or them on the short end of the stick.

On the other hand, the idea of spending cuts and austerity in a recovering economy is likely to stall the economy and put off good numbers for another couple of years, perhaps. So this is more or less the bad result of an uninformed electorate.

In any case. we shouldn't forget who screwed this up - we were in the midst of an accelerating recovery, and the bunch of repugs that got into DC on the last election put the brakes on.

[saorsa]

72. "After the last election" & "uniformed electorate" are

the operative phrases here.
# 1: " After the last election" : it is a thin line that makes up our margin of victory, one year it is there, another it is not., sad but true. As far as I can tell to this date, many new voters and young voters and occasional voters ( call them the Margin Voters) who voted for Obama did not bother to go to the polls last election. Even sadder. Some folk blame the dems for not doing a better job of spreadin the good word about the new good times. I believe that these lost voters, these much needed Margin voters felt they had no reason to go to the damn polls. Sadder still. ( My opinions are based on my own impressions gathered from various sources, I would welcome any links to good voter demographic info on the 2010 elections, so far I have not found enough yet)
# 2: " uninformed electorate" : the only time the Democratic Party Leadership wants face time with the 'electorate' is when they want our money and our votes. They do not want to hear about what we want from them. Result: no permanent on the ground, funded and sustained voter outreach or education efforts. Year after year we start from scratch, and then each campaign pulls up stakes and leaves town, or goes back into hibernation after each election. Don't call us we'll call you. I don't think that helps 'grow' the base, do you? Leaving the Margin voters to be educated by the right wing dominated mass media, might just be a big part of the 'uninformed' problem.
Also for some 'uninformed' in the electorate, they say, why bother? when asked if they vote. These are not stupid people. They have jobs to do, and families to raise. As anyone who spends time watching the politics of the world knows, you can become sickened and disheartened pretty quick. A lot of people, for various reasons only have enough time, strength and energy to keep themselves and their families going. ( which is a major victory for The Right Wing, who love it that way, which is why they begrudge the working class living wages, health care and vacations: they want us to be exhausted).
Some of these voters may go to the polls for the big elections, and yet stay away for the smaller ones. In many cases their lives are more impacted by the economy, and if they don't see progress within a couple of years they may become discouraged, just in time for the next election. Here is where the Democratic Party leadership falls down on the job again. They focus their attention on swing voters, a certain percentage of which only swing with liberals economically; they don't, or may not, ( or don't yet ) have as much solidarity with Democrats on social justice or peace issues.
Saddest of all: Just what is it about an empowered, educated base that scares the bejeebers out of our entrenched, ossified and permanently compromised current Democratic leadership?

[dotymed]

94. We ha(d)ve a President

with an awesome "bully pulpit" that has not been used for the good of the people. Maybe to press for more war, not to help the average American.

[tomp]

104. and how do you explain the poor performance of the dems....

....with the white house and sizable majorities in both houses?

and how do you explain the democratic defeat at the polls in 2010?

and do you not see how politicians and media together mislead the people?

blame the repugs all you want. the dems failed.

[bhikkhu]

131. Declaring failure is fine, if you're into that

but the party still has a fairly defined agenda, and tomorrow is a new day.

What I don't have any use for is all the rush to declare defeat and throw in the towel. You see the same thing on both sides of the aisle - the teabaggers declared defeat faster than anyone here. Nevertheless, everything moves forward and its better to see what can be done tomorrow than cry about what didn't get done today.

Even looking at it that way, just by the numbers and by the programs, I think we got the better end of the compromise and are in a better position.

[tomp]

134. several things:

rushing to declare failure? perhaps you're not familiar with my posts since 2001. i've been "declaring" the failure of the dems since then (and long before i might add). so this is no "rush" on my part. and even if it were, you think you're not rushing in with irrational optimism? evidence of "failure" is bound to be viewed from the perspective of prior expectations. i think the democratic party is a decidedly pro-corporate party, that the evidence of that is glaring. in that sense this is not a failure of the party because they are doing what they were meant to do, fool the masses of people into thinking they are our friends. and they fool a lot of people. i, however, "threw in the towel" on the democratic party a long time ago.

"the better end of the compromise"? big freaking deal. it's a suck ass compromise. the very idea of compromise is suck ass under current conditions. we need radical change now, not pie in the sky when we die. obama is CLEARLY not up to the challenge of leadership in the u.s. in the 21st century. the reason we are here today with you rationalizing this "compromise" is because obama's whole strategy is to "compromise". he's been compromising away, giving more and more of the wealth of this nation to the rich, letting the repubs and corporations have greater representation than they deserve.

and perhaps you should do a little reading on the science of optimism and pessimism. low down pessimism is necessary to keep flighty optimism in check. optimists may be happier but pessimists are usually right.

so, little orphan annie, keep singing about tomorrow. good luck to us all with that. i'll be watching the nation and the world circle the drain while awaiting the next great compromise.

[bhikkhu]

136. An interesting bit about optimism:

I was just reading this the other day - http://books.google.com/books?id=hz32iBYVyGgC&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=optimism+study+happy+longevity&source=bl&ots=TWUWcJ1vaK&sig=32PfMOa_X1y63nrq9vqQi_sUZgY&hl=en&ei=SBujTbDnC4LiiAL2rrWQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=optimism%20study%20happy%20longevity&f=false

"The Longevity Project", which goes into the relative virtues of optimism and pessimism. It doesn't go so far as to say that "pessimists are usually right", but it does conclude pretty convincingly that in the long term a calculated prudence is definitely a better approach than optimism, in spite of our common wisdom that a sunny approach to life.

I'm not sure that applies in any case...government is something of a never-ending debate, and the acts of each day simply determine one's opening position on the next day. Its as inappropriate to declare defeat as it is to declare victory, and pursuing either likely means one has the wrong idea about the process itself. A clear head, resolve and endurance are more useful than either optimism or pessimism.

[tomp]

137. as usual, balance is the key.

i happen to believe this is a time for sounding alarms, but that's just me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. Clinton 2: Electric Boogaloo

:woohoo:

[JHB]

63. I gather Krugman is back under the bus? n/t

[jwirr]

66. I think President Obama is missing one very big fact. "The economy

is growing" with jobs that do not pay a living wage and it is only the Wall Street investors that are making anything. When he is talking to the banksters he can get by with that kind of lies. But those of us down here are the ones that vote and the majority of us are not doing better and when the votes are counted there are more of us than them.

When I hear him spout that lingo it makes me think he agrees with rethugs on another issue. That we the people are dumb enough to believe it is better just because he/they said so. Yes, ever since FDR we have automatically believed that the Democratic Party was on our side fighting for the working class but when better means more wealth to the top then even I have to question the definition of better. A few low pay jobs is not making it any better down here, President Obama.

[Turbineguy]

67. OK. It took them 2 months

and they went to the brink for 38 billion in cuts. In order to fix the deficit they will have to do this 42 more times. Since while they are doing this they will also want to give multi-millionaires more tax breaks, they will have to get better at it.

[WiffenPoof]

124. My Understanding...

...is that $38B represents only 2.5% of the total deficit.

-PLA

[Fool Count]

68. Obama people are not counting on anything. There is no "pulling through" for

them either. When do we all wake up and start to recognize a simple reality: for Obama and "his people"
serving the interests of their corporate capitalist masters is the most important thing, even more
important than being reelected? In fact, it is the only important thing for them. That and getting
high-paying corporate jobs after leaving the White House. But that is kinda one and the same goal.
Actually, I believe, most of them can't wait to get out of the White House and start making real
money, most of it will, of course, be a form of deferred compensation for the splendid work they have
done while in the White House. Just wake up to this simple reality and everything one had to scratch
his head about becomes clear and logical and straightforward. Another realization immediately follows:
there is nothing you can do about it. No matter who you elect, they will be paid for and bought up just
the same. And it will remain so as long as those interests exist and have the money.

[Skittles]

69. wake me up when this fucking nightmare is over

[democracy1st]

70. I know what you mean this is outright unbelievable!

[TK421]

73. Only if I'm the one waking you up, Skittles...HOO-AAAA!!!!

[Skittles]

77. STOP IT TK421

:rofl:

[dflprincess]

75. I knew we had been screwed as soon as I heard Harry Reid call this "historic"

The last time anyone referred to "historic" legislation passing was when they sold us to the insurance companies.

[mvd]

76. I was saddened to hear us happy about the whole thing

This was not an accomplishment at all. At least the health care law was historic, as flawed as it is.

I was thinking there'd be pain either way with this budget showdown. A shutdown would give short term pain, and cuts long term pain. I would have preferred the short term.

[Major Hogwash]

79. Krugman should give back his Pulitzer Prize.

Because this is not even close to being true -- "he has now completely accepted the Republican frame that spending cuts right now are what America needs."

No, President Obama hasn't completely accepted the Republican frame -- the Americans who gave control of the House to the Republicans accepted it.
After 35 years of being called "tax and spend" Democrats, the House Democrats are going to let the Republicans do their thing.
They were duly elected and duly sworn in to ruin any kind of recovery we were going to have, so that is the American way.

You can't blame that on Obama, Paul!!!!!

[ProSense]

83. Deleted, wrong place. n/t

[ProSense]

85. Remember when Krugman said this:

"Mr. Obama gets too little credit. He has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president."

[TiberiusB]

89. Krugman is right, this is about the framing

Krugman isn't discussing the merits of the cuts, or whether they were forced on Obama. Rather, he is focusing on the deeply troubling problem with Obama and Reid's framing this debacle as a victory. In this way the Democrats, with Obama in the lead, openly embrace the notion of austerity and deficit reduction, once again on the backs of the poor and middle class, as "historic." Anyone remember the rush by Obama last Summer to form a Social Security killing Deficit Commission, even in the face of opposition from his own party, the second the word "deficit" left the GOP's lips? This type of failure to control the national dialogue on the economy, much as Obama and the Democrats failed to control the discussion about health care and Wall Street, is what Krugman is lamenting. It simply allows the GOP to control the debate and pushes us ever closer to fully going off the proverbial cliff as a nation.

As for Krugman talking about Obama and deficit control back in February, he was discussing Obama's efforts to control health care costs. That in no way contradicts his opinion here that Obama has once again allowed himself to be swept up in Republican messaging and appeared to embrace the disastrous policies of his supposed opponents.

Obama killed any hope of victory when he immediately caved and assented to the GOP's initial demand for 32 billion in additional cuts. In what has become his agonizingly painful MO, Obama, by assenting to GOP demands virtually in full right out of the gate, only sets the poor and middle class up for more suffering as he "negotiates" for a solution somewhere between "awful" and "tragic." How long before Social Security winds up back on the chopping block?

This budget is the Dems fault, ultimately. They could have, and absolutely should have, passed a budget last year. Their cowardice in the face of the mid term elections and the belief that they had to embrace the GOP meme of austerity and deficit mania put them in the "bind" they are in today. As for the GOP, their plan is obvious. Elections aren't for another two years, by which time they clearly hope to have crippled any recovery, driven a stake into the Dems re-election plans, and smoothed over relations with their base. The ever reliably dense American electorate will then do their part, handing the keys of power completely over to the crazies, and it will then be full speed ahead into the economic/social abyss.

[Jmaxfie1]

88. This might be off topic but, what are the main differences in opinion between...

Krugman and Reich? I've read a little of both, mostly Reich, but I'm not all that brushed up on economic theory. In layman's terms can anyone describe their main differences on policy?

[BlueJac]

92. Obama=disappointment

[Doctor_J]

100. Weakest president in my life time

I'm 54. A bad joke.

[Vinca]

103. It troubles me when I hear the POTUS use GOP dog whistles

like the word "uncertainty." I can't decide if he honestly agrees with them or is playing a game.

[eilen]

115. Like the "Ending welfare as we know it."

or Reid using the word "historic" reminded me of "I feel your pain"

[leeroysphitz]

107. "it was more important to look centrist than to defend good policy"

That quote is as succinct and accurate a summation of this administration's first term as you could hope to find.

[SkyDaddy7]

117. We most certaionly need spending cuts RIGHT NOW!

The question should be what type of spending cuts do we need & how big! I honestly can't see how anyone could say otherwise other than for political reasons...Those days are over, sorry.

[HomerRamone]

121. WRONG

We need a new New Deal spending program and tax levels on the rich more like under Eisenhower. Of course, if we could stop spending billions on immoral wars, that'd be dandy, too...

[SkyDaddy7]

123. LOL! You say "WRONG!" & then

call for cuts!!! :rofl:

[HomerRamone]

127. We need SPENDING but to stop KILLING nt

[howmad1]

125. Bull shit.

We don't need spending cuts. We need tax increases.

[SkyDaddy7]

139. Bullshit? Really?

So you are, like the others who have flamed me, warm & comfy with our current defense budget?

There are a laundry list of cuts we need to make to the budget along with raising taxes!

...But since it seems some have one track mind I will even go out on limb & say I bet there are cuts that could be made to Medicare that would not impact on benefits!

[SkyDaddy7]

140. Bullshit? Really?

So you are, like the others who have flamed me, warm & comfy with our current defense budget?

There are a laundry list of cuts we need to make to the budget along with raising taxes!

...But since it seems some have one track mind I will even go out on limb & say I bet there are cuts that could be made to Medicare that would not impact on benefits!

[upi402]

132. We don't have an entitlements problem, we have a revenue problem

Kill your TV, it's poisoning your ability to reason.
GE paid zero tax, Buffet's secretary pays more tax than him. Wake up now.

End the FICA cap, fix trade law and off-shoring incentives destroying jobs and depleting our wealth here, too many to list. Food for kids and PBS is NOT the problem - it's the agenda.

And TV news is propaganda if you weren't aware already (sounds like it).

[SkyDaddy7]

138. Drop your ego, read what I wrote again & think!

I never said anything about not raising taxes or an entitlement problem, did I? And according to your comment you are just all warm & comfy with defense spending, Farm subsidies, religious programs, etc., huh?

...And you want me to turn off the TV! LOL!!! How about turning off the EGO, slowing down & thinking before writing!!

Now, I will say it AGAIN...We do need cuts it is just a matter of where & how much! If you disagree you do so on purely political grounds! Sorry, but those days are over!

[mm44sas]

122. does Obama want to lose 2012?

I have no way of knowing, but his actions say he wants to run as GOP-lite.. I can not see that working, of course he could say cutting head start, and heating oil for the poor was 'progressive' while giving away 1 trillion in tax cut for the rich..lol.

good luck with that.

[amborin]

129. K&R