home

Who Will Own The Coming Economic Slump?

The better jobs report released today has many people scrambling to figure out who will get credit for the the coming economic recovery. My take is decidedly different. The improvement in the jobs situation is very tepid, but certainly better than it was in 2009. But the incoming GOP House is poised to insist on policies (slashing government spending in particular) that will certainly do great damage to the economy, particularly with regard to job creation. The question in my mind is not who gets the credit, but rather who will be blamed for the coming 1937-like economic slump, particularly with regard to jobs.

The answer to that question will not only be critical to deciding who wins the 2012 election, but whether the nation can escape this economic malaise.It is my view that the GOP policies will be enacted and the key for Democrats is to make sure that the policies are seen as GOP policies. Then in 2012, Dems and Obama need to run against the result of the GOP policies. Which I expect to be near catastrophic for the economy.

Speaking for me only

< 151K Jobs Added In October; Unemployment at 9.6% | The Dishonest Third Way >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    Obama seems ready to sign anything that the GOP puts up so how does that work?

    Your scenario ONLY works if Obama becomes a totally different person than he has become so far.

    Yeah, only half of htis will happen (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    It is my view that the GOP policies will be enacted and the key for Democrats is to make sure that the policies are seen as GOP policies.

    GOP policies will probably be enacted, but they will be dressed up in PPUS garb.

    I think Obama and the Senate Dems need to fight every GOP initiative, but they won't.

    Parent

    Agreed, as I state below (none / 0) (#45)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    but only as what I think they should do, not what I think it likely they will do.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    I hope you are not overly optimistic about dems and are overly pessimistic about everything else.

    that was a gloomy wet blanket on my happy job number/caffeine buzz.  


    Hopefully I am wrong (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    I don't think I am.

    Parent
    That's a high stakes game you're (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    suggesting that they play.  I don't think they have the skill and talent to pull it off.

    Parent
    sadly (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    probably not

    Parent
    Consumers burning off debt (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Can they burn it off soon enough to start spending more and help save the economy?

    A second wave of foreclosures is here...

    The employment numbers are not bad....

    There is pent up consumer demand....

    The Fed is flooding the market buying an insane number of bonds.....

    It could go either way imo....I'll choose to be an optimist.

    Parent

    You are not wrong (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    It starts at the top, and (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    as long as Obama continues to buy into the deficit hysteria, he's going to be the biggest obstacle to any recovery.

    Did you read Krugman today?

    Here's a snip:

    Mr. Obama's problem wasn't lack of focus; it was lack of audacity. At the start of his administration he settled for an economic plan that was far too weak. He compounded this original sin both by pretending that everything was on track and by adopting the rhetoric of his enemies.

    The aftermath of major financial crises is almost always terrible: severe crises are typically followed by multiple years of very high unemployment. And when Mr. Obama took office, America had just suffered its worst financial crisis since the 1930s. What the nation needed, given this grim prospect, was a really ambitious recovery plan.

    Could Mr. Obama actually have offered such a plan? He might not have been able to get a big plan through Congress, or at least not without using extraordinary political tactics. Still, he could have chosen to be bold -- to make Plan A the passage of a truly adequate economic plan, with Plan B being to place blame for the economy's troubles on Republicans if they succeeded in blocking such a plan.

    But he chose a seemingly safer course: a medium-size stimulus package that was clearly not up to the task. And that's not 20/20 hindsight. In early 2009, many economists, yours truly included, were more or less frantically warning that the administration's proposals were nowhere near bold enough.

    Worse, there was no Plan B. By late 2009, it was already obvious that the worriers had been right, that the program was much too small. Mr. Obama could have gone to the nation and said, "My predecessor left the economy in even worse shape than we realized, and we need further action." But he didn't. Instead, he and his officials continued to claim that their original plan was just right, damaging their credibility even further as the economy continued to fall short.

    Meanwhile, the administration's bank-friendly policies and rhetoric -- dictated by fear of hurting financial confidence -- ended up fueling populist anger, to the benefit of even more bank-friendly Republicans. Mr. Obama added to his problems by effectively conceding the argument over the role of government in a depressed economy.

    A president who believed in the power of government to bootstrap a bad economy would not have convened a commission to study the deficit "problem" and headed it with opponents to social safety net programs; if there is any one thing he did that revealed what Obama's economic vision is, it was creating that commission - one that couldn't pass out of the Congress, so he used an executive order to do it - and the only people who could possibly like what it says about Obama's vision are on the other side of the aisle.  The people Obama and members of the Democratic caucus are going to "work with" going forward.

    Who will own the economic catastrophe?  Better to ask, who will live the slump/catastrophe?  We will.  The old will, the sick will, the poor will.  The middle class that is hanging by a thread will.  The same people who always live it.

    There will be absolutely zero satisfaction in being able to blame it on one party or the other.


    Wouldn't it be great if Catfood Comm (none / 0) (#40)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    proposed expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income earners?

    By rights, they should.

    Parent

    Many members of the (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    Cat Food Commission are insisting on more tax cuts along with cutting Social Security. IOW they want to cut spending and eliminate more taxes. The commission definitely has an agenda but I don't think the prime objective for many of the members is really deficit reduction.

    Parent
    That is probably the only hope the Dems (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    have to block the extension of the upper level cuts.

    Of course, be careful what you ask for regarding that commission report.

    Parent

    Cherrypicking (none / 0) (#55)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    I do it all the time playing hockey.  Not the most popular tactic but often effective.

    Parent
    Not binding (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    And if it tries to touch Social Security, there will be 41 votes in the Senate to block it....

    Defense can be fun for Democrats too....

    Parent

    You know what's funny to me (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    They want to raise the retirement age to 70 when there is nothing left to retire from at that age.  We have 17% unemployment/under employment and everyone who actually knows anything about economics has said time and time again, with each passing month this level of high unemployment is becoming hardened into the economy.  Who is going to keep some 65 year old on the payroll when 10 thirty somethings who can do twice as much work in half the time are beating your door down?  I'm tired of the insanity!

    I don't read Krugman to say 17% is hard wired (none / 0) (#74)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    so much as our ruling elite believes it, or is actively working to have 17% accepted by the public as a new fact of life.  

    Lowering unemployment is certainly possible, it is in fact freshman year econ.  When one component of GDP growth is lagging, increase one of the others.  In this case government spending is the only variable that can be readily controlled.  And job growth enhances government tax revenues which lowers the deficit etc etc.  And a nice touch of inflation would serve a debt burdened society in good stead as well.

    Parent

    With each month that goes by (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    and this high unemployment, it gets more and more hardwired right into the system and you have to literally beat it out of it.  I don't just read Krugman, I read everyone.  Whether economists are Conservative or more Liberal, they all agree on this feature, but nobody wants to hear it from the experts.  I heard two different economists today (one very indy and one conservative) both say that unemployment insurance is now the new welfare and there is no way around it.  There are no jobs, there will be no jobs in the immediate future, our population is growing faster each month than the jobs we can produce in this malaise.  If you simply do not throw 10% of our workforce a lifeline, nobody wants to think what happens next.

    Parent
    Also Social Security Disability (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by esmense on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    Applications for Social Security based on disability are way up -- laid off older workers who are too young to collect regular Social Security but too older to be viable in today's job market.

    Parent
    Conservatives don't care about unemployment (none / 0) (#97)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    except to the extent is helps or hurts them in elections, so I would discount their economists.  

    Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman, etc all know how to lower unemployment.  It is not that difficult a concept.  

    Government efforts to date have been to restore capital markets and return the monied interests to their pre-2008 position.  And they have largely succeeded.  

    We are told that a 2-3 trillion, 3-4 year effort to rebuild America, put people to work, improve our energy situaiton is unattainable.  At the same time we saw the Government hand out a trillion or two and encumber another 18 trillion in gauranteeing Wall Street and big banks that they would be kept whole from the fallout of their own fraud.

    High unemployment a new fact of life?  It's BS, pure and simple.  The powers that be have had other priorities.  Maybe electoral necessity will wake Obama up.

    Parent

    Fine, then I'll leave the Conservatives (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    out......and here's Paul Krugman saying "http://www.deccanherald.com/content/85827/high-unemployment-expected-permanent-feature.html">hig h unemployment expected to become permanent feature of US economy.  And he really does say that it becomes permanent after enough time goes by.

    Parent
    I have yet to meet a 20 something (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    in the workplace who gets twice as much work done in half the time as their 65 year old counterparts.


    Parent
    Depends on what your definition (none / 0) (#80)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    of "work" is

    Parent
    Nobody owes any worker any loyalty (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    in this country, it isn't how we do it....we have had that "capitalism" beaten into our heads.  When people get older and start slowing down and having problems, they will be gotten rid of based on our current system.  It was already happening with "downsizing", it will now become much worse in my opinion.  I'm 45 and I can't do what I used to do at 30, my husband can't either....he tries, but he can spend the whole weekend in bed too trying to recover.

    Parent
    Manual Labor.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    though there are some rock hard old timers who put the young bucks to shame on the job...exceptions to every rule, but generally if you're looking for somebody to dig ditches, you want youth.  

    Parent
    It isn't just manual labor (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    either though kdog.  My husband is 40 and has RA, it is in remission but he is an instructor and he has memory lapses now that he never had to deal with before.  It drives him crazy, and he is the only one at this point who is aware of them.  I know it is  hard to admit for many, but when you hit 40 not much improves and things begin to move in the other direction.  That includes just about everything.

    Parent
    The weirdest thing (none / 0) (#146)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    ofcourse is that the above 65 crowd is still heavily voting for Republicans. And please do not tell me that it is because Obama and the Democrats have disappointed them. The above 65 crowd was the only age group that Obama did not win in 2008, so as a group they never gave the Democrats a chance.
    I do however agree with this particular post that you have written. I have been saying similar things myself for some time. In my opinion retirement age should be dropped by a year and not increased to help the economy. It will help more younger workers to become employed and grow the economy. The government should also provide subsidized housing and other services to older workers to smoothen their transition to retirement (for folks who do not have the financial means to retire). Retirees, ofcourse, can earn income by doing part time work that they enjoy doing. eg: some may want to take up painting or horticulture, others may want to spend more time with kids in the community, etc, etc. The government should pay them for doing useful work in communities.

    Parent
    I'm thinking the same way (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by esmense on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    As a business person, I've seen a slight uptick in the last month and I anticipate that next year will be better than 2010, but not necessarily a good year. Most of the other small business owners in my industry I've talked to in recent weeks are conservative Southerners and Midwesterners -- they attribute the slight pick up in business to consumer anticipation of a Republican takeover. My take on it is different -- I see it as an indication that we have hit a bottom that the more affluent are becoming accustom to and comfortable with. They are getting over the shock of their asset losses from the initial crash and have paid down some debt, so they are a little less afraid to spend. Meanwhile, huge numbers of people at the bottom are dropping out of the economy altogether and those not most directly affected are beginning to accept high unemployment as a normal state of affairs.

    I expect we will bounce along at this bottom for awhile, and I expect that Wall Street and the Republicans hope to be able to create another financial bubble that will hide the real state of affairs and further line their pockets. I don't know whether they can do it -- but the ultimately the economy will end up worse off than it is now.

    Will the Republicans get blamed? Not if the Democrats buy into and enable their fantasies.

    But MT (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    your'e using common sense which is in short supply these days.

    Parent
    The new bubble is the bond bubble (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    So today is the day to sell my bonds and buy stocks, like a bunch of insane sheeple.  The make believe pile of crap boat lists to one side, everyone runs to other side.

    Parent
    This will be (sadly) fun to watch (none / 0) (#3)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    So, the plan is for Reid and the Senate to acquiesce to the GOP House.  Then every bill that goes to the WH, Obama holds his nose with one hand and signs with the other while saying "This bill sucks, but I am doing this to prove how idiotic the GOP policies are."

    The is a level of political brilliance never before attained.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    The Dems will get blamed for the policies even if they are GOP policies. It will be impossible to argue that even with the Dem president and senate, purely GOP policies got enacted. For Pete's sake, the GOP managed to block purely Dem policies even with no control of the major branches.

    Parent
    and now (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    instead of standing up for what we elected them for they will roll over and bite the pillow.

    Parent
    My goodness (ole Midwestern expression) (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    BTD turned you quickly.

    Parent
    turned me . . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    into what exactly?

    Parent
    A pessimist! (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    oh honey (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    that happened at about 14

    Parent
    It takes skill (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    but it can be done.

    But let me ask you this, if you believed the GOP policies will lead to catastrophe, how do you deal with it politically?

    Parent

    I guess I don't see any Dem pols (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:31:29 AM EST
    with nearly the skills needed to pull that off. If they were that skillful they would still be in control.

    Parent
    Perhaps not individually, but (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    if the entire Dem congressional membership in DC got together for a long session of sharing with each other what they have learned, they can mob lead. They seem to be able to stand together and support the President, so they should be able to stand together in support of the people while helping the president get a clear understanding of what is going on in their districts.

    I think it is irresponsible of the voters to just sit back and complain while they wait for the next opportunity to cast a protest vote, though. We have a responsibility to help find solutions to the problems in our neighborhoods, too.

    Parent

    Mob lead? (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    Mob mentality has never improved the results from a group of individuals.

    Parent
    You've assigned a definition to mob that is (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    far different than what I meant. I'd like to see the congressional dems stick together for the PEOPLE who sent them there, not the ones who invite them to cocktail parties.

    Parent
    ah... (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    I wish hope continued to spring eternal for me as well..

    Parent
    Dems should resign... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    you want GOP policies America?  They're all yours, we can't be party to what we know will be a disaster.

    Then wait 10-15 years and even Joe The Plumber will be a commie.

    Parent

    I think that you did what Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    did and keep the GOP's attention on things like V-Chips and School Uniforms.

    And you only play with the big items if there is no downside to their legislating or your losing - like jobs.

    On jobs Obama can say here's a clear and simple infrastructure plan that will put 6,8,10 million people to work - the Republicans promised jobs and he makes it clear that he's helping them - if they balk and refuse - Democrats win as the champions of the jobless and underemployed - if they win - they may HELP some people.

    But if Obama tackles energy or the deficit - it is all downside for the Democrats - no upside - because on energy we will likely get expanded off shore drilling which will discourage more than just the base - and on the deficit we will get cuts to Social Security and Medicare which will piss everybody off.

    So he sticks with bs and the few issues that he can achieve a clear win politically and or on policy.

    Parent

    seems to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    it might be time for a Clinton style war room.  the whole aloof thing didnt work out so well.

    Parent
    Past time for that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    No way (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    can this administration outsmart the R's with any of the schemes mentioned here.

    So, why not try something really radical, unheard of in Washington,  a first.........tell the truth:

    Go to the American people and give them a lesson in Economics.  Tell them he was wrong in his initial response to the crisis, and that he listened to the wrong people. C'mon now, if most of us here can understand what the right plan should be, and what the proper roll for Government is, surely our gifted, "greatest evah" speaker can lay it out to the American people so most of them will "get it" also.

    Most of his first economic team is leaving, or has left already, so bring in the "heaters," the relief squad, a top notch, Progressive group of economists who should have been there on Day 1 anyway. Bring in economists who really "get it,"  guys  (and girls) like James Galbraith, Robert Pollin,  Heidi Hartmann, Robert Johnson, Brad DeLong, and yes, Jon Corzine, and Robert Reich. There's really too many to list; we have a treasure trove of top economists in this country who not only are smart, but are also human.

    Before relegating our citizens to a decade, or more, of pain, suffering, and depression, try telling the simple truth.

    Let's see what we Americans are made of.


    Parent

    If Obama believed in the vision (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    that any of those you have suggested have, we would have a much different economic policy and plan for the future than the ones we got, and chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Wouldn't that be nice?

    Obama believes the way he went is the right way to go - we should have been able to see that coming from looking at his economic team pre-2008 - and I don't see him deviating from it; I know I am like a broken record, but someone who would convene that Deficit Commission doesn't have the kind of ecomomic vision we should have been able to expect from a Democratic president.

    We all know what should happen, but unless Obama becomes someone he never was to begin with, I think we might as well be clapping for Tinkerbell...

    Parent

    Oh Anne, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    I wrote the book on our  Mr. Obama; and that was before he even finished his speech at the `04 convention. I could probably sue you for plagiarism  as I have to slap myself in the face to see if my lips are moving every time I read one of  your posts.

    Didn't I say "radical," "unheard of," "a first," and "a long shot?"

    But, if the choice is between him out "foxing" the GOP, or pulling off a master showmanship flip-a-roo, I'll go with door #2.


    Parent

    I got yer "flip-a-roo" but it's (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    been a little too heavy on him flipping us off than flip-flopping his way out of the quicksand he's sinking us all into.

    I wasn't paying as much attention to him beginning in 2004, but I still can't figure out why more people couldn't figure him out once he really hit the national stage.

    He's really terrible for my blood pressure.

    Parent

    there was a time when this would have worked (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    that time has sadly probably passed.  they have their own truth.  and now they not only have a gigantic news conglomerate enabling them they have over 100 elected officials.

    truth is not what it used to be.


    Parent

    Jimmy Carter tried... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    laying a dose of truth on the American people, he got villified for it, and along came Reagan with a fistful of shiny happy "We're #1!" lies...won in a landslide.

    You can't judge America at large using this community, we are la creme de la creme Shooter:)

    Parent

    Yeah, a long shot for sure, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    but we're talking about "The Greatest Evah!!!"

    He did a job on the American people, and the Clinton Juggernaut, didn't he?" I'd like to see him do it again, this time for all the right reasons.

    Also, remember Bill Clinton, "The Comeback Kid?"

    It can be done.

    Parent

    You are right, it does take skill (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    I just tried to hold my nose, sign my name and talk at the same time - much tougher than it sounds.  Harder than rubbing the belly while patting the head.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    On a serious note to answer your question.  The first and largest challenge for the Dems is how to get out of the shadow (even if it is perceptions) of the last 2 years of Dem control when weighted against the current economic situation.  Until those perceptions are changed, it doesn't matter what else is attempted.  Especially since the Dems still control 2/3 of government.  As many have said here, the "We suck but they suck more" is effectively what you are attempting here.

    Parent

    At least you waited a couple of days (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    before gloating....

    Things change all the time....Next year will be different.... Maybe better, maybe worse, but definitely different....

     

    Parent

    It will be the fault (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    of Bill Clinton, of course.  I already read that here in comments.  Next question?

    He was part of it (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    The role the Fed now plays in our economy is pretty insane, and he was part of getting us here.  False markets began with Reagan, and everyone since has contributed....and our economy has no healthy fundamentals anymore.

    Parent
    From the front of nyt.com (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    For G.O.P., Big Ambitions Face Daunting Obstacles:
    The party's leaders in Congress are standing by vows to slash spending immediately even as economists say cuts could further strain the economy.


    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    Setting aside the NYT bias (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:49:21 AM EST
    The GOP doesn't need Big Ambitions per se.  In fact, the message will be the opposite as will the strategy.

    The Dems teed it up quite nicely with all those massive bills.  The public gags at seeing 2-3k page laws pushed through.  All the GOP needs to do is slice out pieces at a time, first focusing on the most onerous and hated elements of those monstrosities.   Much of that can be done and not impact the economy and could have the effect of growing public/business confidence.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    are forgetting the massive number of layoffs the GOP is planning at the state level. I mean we have a criminal for Gov-elect here in Ga who thinks that laying people off will create more jobs. Maybe he can do some smoke and mirrors money laundering for everybody else like he did for himself?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    I can't wait for the Republicans to shift from "repeal" to page-by-page.

    The healthcare bill has always been more popular by individual component than overall. And almost without exception, Republicans will be compelled to leave the least popular provisions untouched. For example, do you foresee the healthcare lobbyists laying down for a repeal of the individual mandate? NO.

    The Republicans can be expected to go after the subsidies, but that is a trap for them IMO. Everyone already thinks that Republicans are mean, and taking healthcare money away from poor people (and the middle class) will not play well.

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    when I heard that strategy put forth by someone on the radio. The only one that has a likely shot is the mandates, and the insurance companies will fight that.

    Parent
    In the motion to recommit (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    I would include the public option. Maybe it could finally get an up-or-down vote!

    Parent
    Nice thought (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:02:21 PM EST
    But Dems will be on defense now for at least two years....

    The big progressive push is over....

    But the new terrain has opportunities.  Democrats can play defense well.

    Reverse wedge issues worked to save three Senate seats....That is one area to focus on....

    Parent

    Republican bailiwick (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    is that sh!tload of corporate welfare.  They may come up with some phony dog and pony show, but there is no way they would allow enough votes to take money from some of their biggest benefactors.

    Parent
    Not page by page but targeted enough (none / 0) (#60)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    especially at elements that public are aware of and dislike.

    Obama just handed over the 1099 repeal win at his presser.  The same with Tort reform.  Free points on those two.

    The mandate will fall, either by legislation or the courts.  A huge win for the GOP.

    When elements like the 1099 and mandate fall, HCR falls economically/budget wise from its own weight.

    Parent

    That assumes it gets 41 votes in the Senate (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    Most of the Health care bill cannot be defunded, according to an anlysis I read...

    As to the mandates, you think the insurance industry will let that happen?  

    The best points of the HCR are the regulation on dropping people or not covering them and the requirement that 85% of premiums go to care....Those would be hard to repeal..

    And the subsidies will be hard to get rid of.  

    Parent

    Assumes it gets 60 votes (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:57:38 AM EST
    in the Senate and the Dems can't manage 41 votes to hold a filibuster....

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:57:38 AM EST
    at this point they won't be because nobody is getting them yet. That's one of the epic fails of Obama. People don't miss what they don't have.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:59:58 AM EST
    But those who have really delved into the nuts and bolts have concluded that the Republicans can't do much to undo HCR until 2012.

    And, if you believe as I do, that the Republican surge had nothing to do with HCR, and it was mainly a talking point, then there may not be more than a symbolic token gesture or two....

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    actually I think that HCR had something to do with the republican surge but not a whole lot. Insurance rates have been skyrocketing for the last 8 to 10 years but this time the insurance companies had a fall guy to blame--Obama for it.

    Parent
    There is a contradiction in your post (none / 0) (#118)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    Repubs can't repeal the mandate hated by the public because it is loved by the Insurance companies.

    Repubs can't repeal 85% premiums go to care or consumer protections that is hated by the insurance companies but is popular with the public.

    Are insurance companies going to drive changes or not?  If the repubs offer a repeal to all the above (essentially going back to square 1) I think the insurance industry would take that.

    Parent

    And "the whole thing" if repealed (none / 0) (#120)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    would be met with the President's veto pen.

    Parent
    The original logrolling holds (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    85% cap--for the little people

    Mandate--for the insurance cos.

    Parent

    Tort reform is meaningless (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    It is a campaign issue.

    The State of California passed tort reform 20 years ago.  Texas did awhile ago.  It didn't do squat.

    If tort reform gets passed nationally, (whatever happened to states rights?), then the GOP will lose a slogan, and have no excuse on health care anymore....

    Parent

    It's big bucks to deep pocket corporate (none / 0) (#91)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    defendants. Especially those for whom negligence and carelessness eis a way of life.

    How do you spell BP?

    Parent

    Exactomundo (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    And....

    It won't do very little to lower the costs of medical malpractice insurance and diddly for health care premiums....

    Parent

    Interestingly, my ex, a physician in (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    CA who used to vote Dem. but has reverted to his father's politics, raged on and on about HCR--espec. need for tort reform.  I sd., you've already got it!

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    It shows that whining about about tort reform is just  a slogan....meaningless cant with respect to lowering health care costs....but it does benefit the big boys with all the money.....

    Parent
    Greed, No DOubt (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    Yeah, the AMA did not want to touch the health care system because it was too lucrative as it was.

    Now the Doctors are voting R because they are afraid of having to buy Buicks instead of Mercedes and BMWs.

    Disgusting.

    Parent

    They are hurting, they say! (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    They have been saying that for decades (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    now.

    The ones I know are in corporate working for device manufacturers, or hooking up with them as clinical trial contractors and pulling in the big bucks through stock options/gifts. Others are selling pharmaceuticals to the doctors who haven't left the field. Those still in practice are complaining that the health insurance companies are too selfish with their allowable amounts. Nurses and clinicians are making $65/hour and more. I'm pretty sure the doctors are doing better than them.

    As I see it, the big problem is really with the auto dealers charging too much for the luxury vehicles.


    Parent

    The point of tort reform is not to protect (none / 0) (#123)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    the Dr's malpractice rates but to push to reduce preventative medicine/practices.  To focus tort reform on malpractice awards/premiums is the wrong message and not the one the GOP is making.

    Parent
    Same difference (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    Tort reform has been in California for decades....

    It is just a theorectical talking point that Republicans love....It will be good because you say so...although the evidence says otherwise where it has actually been tried.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    is exactly the point the GOP is making. That doctors somehow need special treatment and need special protection from the "great unwashed" out there.

    Parent
    Do you really have any idea (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    what tort reform means or is?

    I would be surprised.   It is just a GOP slogan.

    Parent

    Democrats in the House proposed (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    a 1099 repeal long ago.

    It is not that big a deal....A quirk that will be addressed.

    Parent

    Then why is it still in the law and Obama (none / 0) (#122)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    offered it up as an R "fix" that he is willing to accept.  They had the majority in the House and would have easily gotten some R senators to vote to kill that portion - the didn't

    The Ds get the 1099 hung on them and Rs get credit for eliminating it.

    Additionally, that provision was heavily relied upon to make the budget scoring appear to work.  Remove it and the Ds take a retroactive hit.


    Parent

    There were completing plans (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    for a 1099 fix....

     

    Parent

    Now that's another great winning slogan (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    "We have competing plans to fix our screw ups".

    milquetoast

    Parent

    That 1099 thing has to go, (none / 0) (#87)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:57:40 AM EST
    absurd on its face.

    If played right, the GOP House actually presents an opportunity to get rid of many of the things that a lot of people, including probably Obama, don't like about HCR.  Tweak it to improve it.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    When elements like the 1099 and mandate fall, HCR falls economically/budget wise from its own weight.

    Followed closely thereafter by the private insurance model health care system in America. It is unsustainable. Once both HCR and the pre-HCR insurance system fall completely, we will get single payer.

    Too bad for the people that get bankrupted or die in the process.

    Parent

    So who is the Dem that can lead in (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    holding the line against spending cuts? Maybe Boxer, safe for another 6 years? I can't think of another one even willing to try.

    Parent
    There's only one who matters (none / 0) (#44)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    and we all know who it is.

    Address: 1660 Pennsylvania

    Parent

    err, 1600 (none / 0) (#47)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    dont you mean (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:08:51 AM EST
    666 Pennsylvania Ave?

    Parent
    NO (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    he moved back to Texas

    Parent
    I was hoping a liberal lived at 1660 (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    Brinksmanship (none / 0) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    Can they pass an extension on middle-class tax cut/hold the line in lame duck on strictly party line?  If so, first step on the path to providing some cover.

    Reconciliation may be available (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    Sorry, no reconciliation is not available (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    because in their fear of election politics the Dem leadership never passed a budget resolution.  No budget resolution means no reconciliation authority.

    A very bad self inflicted wound.

    Parent

    It depends on whether you're (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    following the rules or the ROOLZ.

    If the Democrats so choose, a majority vote is available in the Senate at any time.

    Parent

    Good luck with that (none / 0) (#46)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    Get back to me when it happens, I'll buy you a beer.

    Parent
    Than just get rid of the filibuster (none / 0) (#33)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    in this lame duck.

    Really, when will there ever be a more serious reason to do so?  We are talking about a long, lost, miserable decade that  can be avoided in at least in part with sensible legislation in the next month.

    It will also help with getting Dem judicial nominaitons through.

    Parent

    Not worth it (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    The Republicans could easily take the Senate and pick up 6 seats as Webb, Tester, McCaskill, Conrad, and a couple of others are up for re-election in 2012.

    Huckabee is 8 points ahead of Obama right now.

    So, you could have a Republican Congress and a President Huckabee in 2012.

    The Republicans have shown the way on how to use the filibuster...

    As to judicial appointments, we should at least have the threat to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee to temper a President Huckabee....

    Parent

    If they don't do it more likely GOP wins 2012 (none / 0) (#101)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    and your parade of horribles comes to pass.

    The GOP will abolish the filibuster whenever it suits them to do so.  I would do my utmost now to prevent Huckabee, who I agree is their strongest candidate (maybe Daniels), form ever coming to the WH.

    That requires using the lame duck Congress and Senate majority in 2011.

    Capitulation and compromise with the GOP is the surest road to the nightmare you have laid out.  It is also, I fear, the most likely road to be chosen by Obama & co.

    Parent

    GOP house can block whatever they want. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    In 2012 when the GOP will certainly get a majority in the senate, you are looking at a good chance at a republican house and senate.  

    Add the possibility of a Republican President without a filibuster......

    Parent

    only in the lame duck though (none / 0) (#27)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    Bush's tax cuts passed through reconciliation

    Parent
    And there was a budget resolution that (none / 0) (#48)
    by BTAL on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    authorized tax cuts as available for reconciliation.  The point?

    Parent
    Concede my knowledge of Senate procedure (none / 0) (#56)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    is lacking and accept your analysis.  

    I'd still abolish the filibuster in the lame duck if that is what it takes.  The alternative is too harsh both in human misery over the next decade and triumph of GOP politics (which may be the same thing).

    Parent

    The "compromise" (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    would be to make the middle class tax cuts permanent and to extend the tax cuts for the rich for two years....

    That would be a good result and require the Republicans to run on a tax cut exclusively for the rich in 2012.

    Parent

    I am ok with that, doubt GOP is (none / 0) (#102)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:16:43 PM EST
    Well, it should be tried in lame duck (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    Will all the GOP Senators really vote against an extension of the tax cut for the rich?

    Parent
    GOP policies can't be "enacted" (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    without Democratic support in the Senate and Obama's signature.  At that point it will be impossible to say anything enacted is a GOP only policy.

    Better for Dems to propose only things, like Obama tax plan, designed to increase demand and create jobs, and oppose those things, like tax cuts for rich folks, that do not serve those purposes.  If nothing passes as a result that is better than passing GOP policies, none of which will improve the jobs picture.

    I agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    and at the same time they need to vastly improve their communications to explain that the gridlock is helping the country in the case of blocking GOP stuff.

    Parent
    I'd prefer Dems be seen as acting (none / 0) (#37)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    by passing job creating bills in Senate, Obama announcing his support, and those bills dying in the GOP House.

    Parent
    Communications (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    Press conferences w/PowerPoint presentations and easy to read charts that explain things in simple terms.

    Parent
    I think Obama's goose is already cooked. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    The GOP got the best of both worlds.  They took a commanding lead in the house.  Boehner is the speaker and he is going to be a far more formidable opponent for Obama than Ginrich was for Clinton.  They also got into the high 40s in the Senate with plent of conserva-dems running around (giving McConnell functional control of the Senate without the responsibility).  Harry Reid - a hapless, wounded, and nationally unpopular Senator that co-presided over the worst beating the Dems took in just about everyone's lifetime - is still the face of the Senate.  That is not only an albatross for Obama but it is makes it very difficult (perhaps impossible) for him to run against a GOP controlled congress the way Clinton did in '95-'96.

    Obama's only chance is to hope consumers come back in 2H11 through 2012 in a big way erasing a lot of unemployment and improving the economy (unlikely).  He also has to hope the GOP nominates a terrible candidate (not unlikely).

    But his road ahead is tough.

    I don;t care much for Reid (none / 0) (#53)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    but hapless and wounded?  He pulled off a major upset.  Reid was dead man walking until last Tuesday.  

    53 Senators is a suprisingly good outcome in my view, all things considered.  Leiberman and Nelson have little if any leverage now, and Holy Joe is gone in 2013.

    Boehner is as phony as they come.  His last vist to the national stage was when he was handing out envelopes of cash on the House floor.   Obama should subtly bait him into wasting the House's time with efforts to repeal HCR and financial reform.

    Parent

    He did not pull out anything. It was his opponent (none / 0) (#57)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    The only thing Reid did to win re-election was do everything he could to ensure Angel was his opponent.  Yes he turned on his GOTV machine the final week but anyone else would have killed him.  Reid is wounded and unpopular - the Dems would be better off with someone else as Senate majority leader.

    53 Senators is not a surprisingly good outcome, 47-48 Republican senators is about what everyone was expecting.  The only reason the Dems did not bleed Senators at the same rate as everything else was luck - they were not in a cycle where they were defending many Senate seats, and a big chunk of what they did defend was in the New England and Pacific Rim areas.  If the 2012 slate of candidates were up for re-election in 2010, they would have written off the Senate 8-10 months ago.

    And I do not understand why Boehner being phony (I certainly agree he is) matters when managing a caucus.

    Parent

    I would have bet $100 Tuesday morning (none / 0) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    Reid would lose, even to Angle.

    Parent
    I did not have much company (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    predicting his win.  which I have done for months.

    I never believed that in the end they would elect Angle.

    Parent

    Well, we elect Bunning, McConnell and now Paul (none / 0) (#66)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    so Angle to me did not seem such a stretch.

    Parent
    Paul in Kentucky was not near the stretch (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:40:01 AM EST
    as taking out a sitting Senate Majority Leader in a state like Nevada with a candidate like Angel.  Her "you look Asian to me" caused even the most optimistic of her supporters to start seeing her as a loser.

    Parent
    If only Kentucky had Latinos..... (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    All Hail, Cap't Howdy! (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    Yes, you did.....

    Reid's win was surprisingly easy...

    Parent

    likin (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    the sound of that.
    far be it from me to gloat but my senate predictions were dead on except for AK and in that case I was fairly certain from what I was hearing locally that Miller was a goner and who would have believed she could pull off a write-in in 2010.


    Parent
    Boehner is herding cats (none / 0) (#65)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    with all those tea partiers, Cantor wants his job, and a guy who hands out cash like that on the House floor as rewards for a vote has a scandal or two or three waiting to blow up in his face.

    The American people, on whose behalf the GOP so regularly speaks, will quickly see through the phony Mr. Boehner.

    Parent

    But that is the problem and one of the (none / 0) (#73)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    big differences between him and Gingrich.  A very small % of voters will even know who he is.  Boehner does not see himself as a messianic insurgent, ideological driven, philisophical orator like Gingrich thought of himself (which put Gingrich in the lime light a lot).

    Parent
    Tough One (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    Because most voters do not care about the mechanics only the results.

    The GOP strategy has been to do everything possible to make the D's look bad at the expense of the country. They know that most voters do not follow politics and only vote on their well being (it is the economy stupid!), so now that obstruction is not the only tool they have, slash and burn will be the order of the day.

    INteresting that the PPUS never had a chance but, here at least, it is alive and well. The GOPers have aligned with the discontented D's to do everything to get Obama out of office. Some commenters who were aligned with Hillary have even bragged about voting for R's this time around.

    Ruthless thirst for power (Rs) aligned with vicious spite (VDs) make for some nasty politics.

    It all depends on the spin used in 2012 (none / 0) (#52)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    If the economy is good at 2012  both sides will try to spin the good results in their political favor and if the results are bad they will do the same.

    2012 will depend on whose spin you believe and that will decide who gets to be president.

    If the economy is good in 2012 (doubtful) (none / 0) (#54)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    Obama will get credit.  No one is going to go into the booth thinking his/her COngressperson turned the economy around.

    Parent
    It also depends on who the GOP nominates. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    Some candidates are just soooo bad they cannot win in the best of circumstances (see Angel).

    Parent
    I remember that being said in the late 70s (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    about a certain potential GOP candidate many thought, not so unreasonably as it turns out, was nutty.

    Parent
    Paul Farrell at Market Watch (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    says that things will remain horrible, President Obama will not get a second term and will likely be replaced with someone preaching Republican Reaganomics.....and the economic malaise can go 20 years if and when that happens.

    A GOP President will reinvigorate the economy (none / 0) (#70)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    by following David Broder's advice.  The GOP will not hesitate to use a war, of whatever magnitude is necessary, as an instrument of both economic and foreign policy and to retain power.  We have all lived that.

    That is why it is so critically important the Dems do whatever they can, no matter how extraordinary or unprecedented, in this lame duck Congress and after, to improve things or at least leave the GOP holding the bag for the lack of improvement.

    Parent

    Modern Wars don't grow an economy (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    The modern day war does not spur economic growth.  We have two going on right now, and they are bleeding us to death too along with what the Fed is doing.

    Parent
    You knwo that, and I know that (none / 0) (#103)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    but David Broder for one does not.  And I suspect he is highly representative of the thinking in DC, especially GOP circles.

    Parent
    We have a warmongering Dem (none / 0) (#88)
    by observed on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    President, in case you didn't know.
    It's only by comparison with the Storm Front that you don't notice.

    Parent
    I vehemently disagree with his Afghan policy (none / 0) (#112)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    but i don;t think he is a warmonger at all, certainly not like the Bushes & their various henchmen.  

    Obama would not have started Iraq and i think he would have had a much more limited, acheivable and quickly attainable goal in Afghanistan had he initiated that conflict.  As it is he was handed  a poorly defined mission and quagmire that I believe he sincerely wants out of and mistakenly thought a surge was the way to get out.

    Is he a captive of a viscious and cruel US foreign policy.  Yes, like every other US politician, seriousness sadly requires a commitment to US empire.  Would he start a war to improve his position in the polls or in a useless attempt to reinvigorate the economy?  I do not believe that any more than I believed Clinton wagged the dog in 1998.  I  believe any GOP hopeful except Paul would do so in a heartbeat.

    Parent

    I don't think he's a warmonger, either, but (none / 0) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    I never would have believed so many democrats would have voted the way they did and allowed Iraq to happen prior to that screw up. And, I do believe that he would have voted right along with the rest of those who cast a YEA vote. Congress was operating under a cloud of patriotism claims that caused them to cast some very stupid votes. They should have been over it and reversing some of those mistakes in 2009-2010, though.

    Parent
    Fingers in the Air (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    To be fair, the Pols read the sentiment of Americans who mostly seem to love a good war, and voted accordingly.

    Parent
    Really think so? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    Not in my area. The anti-war protests, and the opposition to the war was very, very high. But, maybe the PNW is too far away from DC to get their message through.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    In NYC the anti war protest was huge. But most in the state loooved killing muslims. And NY is a blue state.

    After 9/11 the vengeance level was high, and americans wanted blood and cheap oil.

    Parent