Obama: "we also made sure that at the end of the day, this was a debate about spending cuts"

[grahamhgreen]

Spending cuts?

No. Unless it includes the military, which it did not.

The framing is: "Should we increase revenue by taxing the rich, or pull the plug on Grandma?"

[phantom power]

1. arrrgh. "At the end of the day, we made sure the debate was on GOP terms."

Arrrgh

:banghead:

[hfojvt]

6. no, the GOP wanted to make it about abortion, about NPR, about the EPA

in other words, about THEIR social agenda, disguised as spending cuts.

[phantom power]

9. The GOP wanted spending cuts. And they got them by opening negotiations with nutzoid social issues.

Because they know how to negotiate, and the Dems don't.

The Dems also don't know how to play chicken. "OK, shut down the govt. And we'll go on the teevee and make real sure that all the voters know what you did, and why you did it."

[GOTV]

15. Yes. Why didn't they give up their barganing chips right in the beginning, like Obama does?

Because they want to win.

[JackRiddler]

7. Tom Tomorrow Tells the Story of the Budget Debate

Click on the link to give TT some love!
http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Tom%20Tomorrow/

[QC]

8. Bingo!

It's a recurring pattern. At every turn, the GOP sets the terms of the debate because Obama seldom misses a chance to validate GOP frames.

[Shiver]

2. It did include the military.

Somewhere between 3-18 billion from the Pentagon budget.

[Bandit]

14. That is after the fairly huge increase the beginning of the year

Defense Spending has not declined and it will not decline with Obama or any other Republican in the Whitehouse..They may make a few cuts here and there but those will be more than made up for within the Defense Budget. It has climbed steadily under Obama at a rate equalk to or more than under Bush*. It actually did decline under our last "Democratic" President Bill Clinton..and guess what, the USA did not fall to pieces under his Administration. In fact just the opposite..

[gratuitous]

3. At the end of the day, the GOP got more than its opening bid

No matter how you slice it, if you go into a negotiation and the other side is asking for X, and winds up getting X plus more? You got skinned. Badly. And no amount of prettying it up helps for anyone who was paying attention. "But they didn't gut Planned Parenthood!" says the administration, standing there in its shorts. No, not this time around. You think they'll be back when this grand compromise expires? And you think their demands are going to get any more reasonable?

[Raine]

32. I'd love to sell Obama my old used car

I'm sure that he would offer more than I'd be asking for it right off the bat. :evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. " I want to thank Speaker Boehner..." Says it all.

[nashville_brook]

12. no doubt.

[OHdem10]

5. When are we going to debate Which TYPE of Government do

we want? Small enough to be drained down the bathtub?
Or a Government which provides opportunities for all
Americans and a participatory Social Safety Net.

Until we come to an agreement on what kind of Government
we want, the GOP will win.

Serious Debate making the case for a responsible Social
Safety Net. This mean Democrats have to stand up for
Democratic Principles and stop this "Me Too" affirming
RW Policies. Example: The GOP yells taxcuts and the
the Democrats simply echo--Me Too. They have enabled
the Republicans to cut taxes to the point the coffers
are almost empty.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

10. you're wrong, graham. There are Defense cuts in the deal.

[progressoid]

18. Right - 3 Billion dollars. That's a whole 0.003% of Defense spending

Golly what a hardship to the Military Industrial Complex.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

20. It's 3 billion that didn't get cut from Social Programs. and the Repukes didn't want it.

[walldude]

33. Wrong. It's 3 billion that gets put in the pockets

of corporations that don't pay their taxes.

Who are you kidding with this bullshit?

You wouldn't happen to be a Maverick would you? From NJ?

[grahamhgreen]

23. It's increasing revenue by taxing the ultra-rich, the corportions, and closing loopholes, VS

cutting spending cuts (but not war spending).

He has adopted the GOP framing and abandoned the Dem framing.

[andym]

11. Because the chess players in the GOP knew they could use social issues to force big spending cuts

in programs that do not need them. They likely planned all along to give up their policy riders in return for big cuts and framing the debate their way.

[Cameron27]

16. It's not a big chess move though.

They always use social issues as a wedge, and the Democrats KNOW they do. Bad compromise? Snookered? Capitulation? No, I think it's something more fundamental and more ominous than that.

[andym]

19. Something ominous? I agree-- the Democrats in Congress are basically in a losing position

It's only a matter of time that they (and the country) are checkmated. This first battle is only a small chess move, I do agree with that. The problem is that the Tea Party GOPers believe that they are revolutionaries. Their revolution is the Reagan Revolution, and their goal is small government (except for the MIC).
They have been brainwashed to think that small government equals true freedom. Grover Norquist's plans from the 80s appear to be in danger of realization.

Why is it different this time? 1) Tea Party GOP would love to shut the government down (to show its not needed, and to remove more Democrats next year in a bad economy), 2) Since they represent the ultimate ideology that the rest of the GOP at least gives lip service to, it is difficult for the mainstream GOP (which is quite conservative anyway) to disagree, 3) It is much easier in the US governmental system to destroy something by defunding it, than to create something (new programs need the House, the President and 60 votes in the Senate). 4) Defunding only requires that one chamber of Congress or the President refuse to go along. 5) Even if Democrats propose raising taxes (or eliminating tax cuts), they won't happen because the GOP won't go along. But then the government will shut down causing chaos-- see point #1. (or the Democrats "compromise") 6) Democratic party is in a weak position and has few choices other than "compromise" (which will be close to capitulation) -- the best at this point would be to oppose these changes from the left and at least allow the political debate to play out, but Democrats are even more frightened of a shutdown than the mainstream GOPers, since it will cripple the economy, hurt the poor, and essentially destroy the chances of Democrats maintaining the Presidency or the Senate.


The only way to weaken the GOP's winning position is to drive a wedge between GOP moderates and the Tea Party. But there are too few GOP moderates (and they are conservative by any reasonable measure anyway). So there are almost no counter moves available and with Murdochs's Fox and Friends able to strongly influence the mainstream media, there is indeed something ominous in the air.

How do the big corporations feel? Well they like when big government caters to them, but they love the idea of small government: no regulations, no taxes, freedom to operate with complete impunity.

[Cameron27]

21. Yes

and Obama & the Dems certainly knew all this when they still held a majority but refused to tackle the budget then.

[andym]

22. Dems made one big miscalculation

they thought it would be business as usual this year. They didn't believe that the Tea Party could really be such a big force for the GOP. Many here on DU felt the same, ridiculing the Tea Party, even as they and their corporate sponsors influenced the health care debate to their advantage.

But the Tea Party and the GOP might not have taken power (or at least to the same degree), if the Dems and the President had not failed to drive home the message how the banks and big business were at fault for the economic meltdown (and how the GOP's deregulation policies let them). They needed to say this every day and Sunday and throw Bernanke out. Big mistakes that gave the game to the GOP. It really is like chess-- you make one major blunder and you are doomed unless your opponent also blunders.

[grahamhgreen]

24. The Dems need to realize that Tea baggers represent a cabal of billionaires and

money is power.

This is Obama's fatal flaw, he thinks that the power brokers on wall street will fund his campaign instead of siding with the billionaire/teabag cabal. They won't.

[andym]

25. Agree-- but there is even more here

His fatal flaw is trying to please everyone, to be the mediator-in-chief.

As part of this, the President wants to show big business he is friendly to their needs, to show that he knows that private enterprise is a foundational to the US beyond his need for his re-election. He actually believes in this strategy I think. This belief is quite dangerous at a time when the Right is trying to advance their dystopian revolution and just after the big banks brought America to her knees.. They need to be countered ASAP.

[bobbolink]

13. AGREE! Indeed, this WAS about spending cuts...making sure we poor folk sacrificed.

After all, we don't do anything to deserve to LIVE in this country, do we?

:nuke:

[Obamanaut]

17. Interestingly, "...at the end of the day..." has been used by Palin a lot, and

generated much derision here.

Maybe her phraseology is contagious.

[phleshdef]

31. Its a phrase used by everyone a LOT. What dumb shit.

[Obamanaut]

34. Using such a phrase a LOT is what is annoying about that phrase, along with

'whatever', 'you know', 'just saying', and so forth.

One might expect a world leader to come up with something better.

Or not, depending on the world leader.

[phleshdef]

35. You are overreaching with the pettiness. Its exposing you.

[Obamanaut]

36. Exposing because I expect a president to be able to speak without

using tired, overused phrases - 'boots on the ground', 'where the rubber meets the road', etc?

What is the next step? Use 'goes' intead of 'said'?

[phleshdef]

37. Exposing you for pretending something bothers you so you can continue bitching to no end.

At the end of the day, no one gives a fuck about your phony expectations. You are trivial.

[Obamanaut]

38. No one cares, and yet, you continue to respond. Imagine that!

I'm retired, so I can go on all day between working in the yard and going to the gym. Better that teevee.

[phleshdef]

39. I find your fraudulent concerns to be annoying. That doesn't mean I care about your expectations.

I don't even believe you have said expectations to begin with. I can't care about something that, at the end of the day, doesn't exist.

[Obamanaut]

40. All the hopey/changey hype was a case of all that glitters is not gold. You are

free to believe what you will. Or not believe. Ain't America grand like that!

The concerns you find annoying you could easily escape by not opening the post, but you do.

You could have pressed the ignore button by now, but you didn't.

I just finished a good session of arms and shoulder workout at the gym, and now it's all free time the rest of the day. Well, after feeding the dogs.

[dionysus]

26. please explain how we can get tax raises through a GOP house.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Last December, all we had to do was to do nothing, now

we have to do something.

We have to fight for it.

You bring your case to the American people, 81% of which want to tax the rich to end the deficit, and you make it happen.

What? Obama thinks he can fight a war, but he can't fight the Teabaggers?

[dionysus]

28. taxes would have went up on everyone graham, you know that. now explain how you get a bill through

the GOP house

[grahamhgreen]

29. Taxes did go up on everyone, because

when you cut services you are effectively raising taxes.

I just explained - you fight like a commander-in-chief, if you have any guts at all.

You destroy the GOP house in the next election by fighting for what Americans want - out of Iraqistan (63+% of Americans want this and Obama can do it with a phone call), and fighting to tax the rich (81% of Americans want this - EIGHTY ONE PERCENT!).

What Obama is doing is soft selling Democrats on a regressive far right agenda that includes more war, tax cuts and graft for the hoarding class, nuclear nightmares, and cutting services to needy people.

ON EDIT:

700 billion in revenue would have been generated from the additional tax revenue from the rich in December. More than 10 times the amount of the budget cuts.

[dionysus]

30. sorry graham. you didn't understand how a risk pool works, and you don't understand the tax cut deal

either.
in fact, had obama let the tax cuts expire, when taxes went up on everyone, i gaurantee you'd be talking about how he broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. or how he hung the unemployed out to dry.

you've said the republicans would never fillibuster a standalone bill on just middle class tax cuts and unemployment, yet they did, twice.

good day.