home

The Deal And "Shared Sacrifice"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:41:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Atrios asks:

I wonder what Andrea Mitchell is sacrificing for the new austerity.

Here's the thing, the time to ask Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan and rich people like them to sacrifice was when President Obama was striking The Deal. Everyone wants to pretend that what is happening now on the "New Austerity" has nothing to do with the The Deal that was struck in December. It has everything to do with it. When Ezra Klein was giving The Deal a standing ovation back in December, me and a few others were saying that it was a terrible mistake because the "New Austerity" was coming. If Obama has simply said No to The Deal, he could be negotiating tax rates right now, not just budget cuts. The Deal was a terrible mistake and anyone who was honest when thinking about it knew this.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Supeme Court Rules TX Inmate Can Sue For DNA Testing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Deal And "Shared Sacrifice" | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Jon Stewart had a great segment (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    one night last week comparing the punditocracy rhetoric about who was rich pre-Deal with the rhetoric now. Back in the fall, the pundits were all over themselves declaring that people making 225k were not rich at all, can't raise their taxes, etc.  Now, teachers and other public workers making a quarter of that are making soooo much money they are breaking the bank and have to sacrifice.

    Also, Gloria Steinem took Ezra to school the other night on Bill Maher. I have to watch it again to get specifics, but it was a joy to behold. In general, Maher and Steinem were all over him about Obama's bad bargaining in HCR and 'The Deal'. Ezra stuck with 'if he had asked for more the other side would have said no'.

    Sounds good (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    Wish I had seen it.

    Parent
    It was good. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    Complete with Steinem warmly grasping Ezra's hand like she was his Mother trying to explain something that she knew he wasn't going to maybe ever understand.

    His youth and arrogance was frighteningly apparent in that moment.

    I met her many years ago when I was just starting out in NY.  She was a formidable and extremely gracious person.  She was also someone to whom I understood I owed a debt of gratitude.  She blazed trails that expanded my opportunities in life.

    What was most interesting about how Ezra reacted was that he seemed completely clueless about who he was sitting next to.  Clueless about the fact that the old lady to his right had some real experience in fighting tough political battles.  He gave off the "you just don't understand" vibe in defending his position.  Shaking head.

    The reality is that she, like many others, expect more probably because they did more and were witness to history where much, much more was envisioned and made reality.

    Parent

    We all owe her a debt.... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by honora on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    but I am disappointed that she would appear on Maher's show.  He is as misogynistic as they come.  I have no respect for him, he is part of the problem.

    Parent
    Yes, Ezra, the amiable Maher Show (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    guest, quickly changed demeanor with body and other language revealing his comfortable residency in the cage of Obama's negotiating prowess.

    When Bill Maher begrudgingly acknowledged the negotiating skills of the Republicans (e.g., Wisconsin Governor Walker taking the extremist position of doing away with collective bargaining rights had obtained salary and benefit cuts--if that was all he really wanted) as compared to Obama's compromising and compromised position in the health care debate, Ezra pointed out that the Obama way was the best way since he achieved what no other president could do.  Hence, it got results--so  put that in your bong Bill and smoke it.  And, you, Gloria, are a nice but naive woman.

    Parent

    You know, I'm really starting to (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    miss that old-style politician who comes to this town with exuberance and expectation that seems wildly unrealistic when they show up.  I remember thinking how presumptuous LBJ was in trying to create his "Great Society" when I learned about it in high school. Decades later, I'm really feeling like I miss that kind of egotistical dreamers who used to be members of the American political class.

    These compromised pragmatists just don't do it for me.

    How could it be considered a feat of political genius to have further institutionalized an extant and broken system of private health insurance?

    Parent

    Easy to dream: after (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    the 1964, LBJ enjoyed a 68-32  and 295-140 (or so) Dem over Repub advantage in Congress, plus having a fair number of moderate to liberal Goopers to cobble together a solid progressive working majority on domestic legislation.  With that type of advantage, I can be a creative dreamer, too and rack up quite a legislative record.  Quite another thing, however, to competently implement and administer the programs you pass -- and in that category, Johnson fell well short of the mark.

    Much more politically liberal era back then too, at least when the good legislation was being passed and before the RW-GOP backlash in the '66 midterms.  But Lyndon had to go screw things up with his war, and failing to honestly explain it, and pay for it, and well, that was the beginning of the end for the liberal era of progressive governance.

    Of course Obama the conciliator with his comparatively modest cong'l advantage which still should have been considered an advantage, is almost the sort of kumbaya Dem pol one should expect given years, decades, of timid party leadership that always let the other side set the agenda and never held them accountable for their misdeeds.

    Parent

    Hang on a second, brodie (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:24:48 PM EST
    Johnson certainly had his flaws (some of them huge, and I still haven't forgiven him for the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the lies he used to do so), but give the man his due.  You said:
    Quite another thing, however, to competently implement and administer the programs you pass -- and in that category, Johnson fell well short of the mark.

    I think that the implementation and administration of quite a lot of the legislation passed during his administration was rather impressive.  You could argue that he could have done a better job enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it had a huge effect.  He did a better job enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Medicare enrolled 19 million its first year(link)- certainly a much faster implementation than what we're getting with the current health care "reform."  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 did not work as well as it should have, but the Higher Education Act of 1965 gave a whole lot of aid to black colleges, and hugely increased the number of black college students within a few years.  (link)  Then there was the War on Poverty- some very good things, some things that did not work as intended.(link)  I lived through all this, and remember it quite well.  I also, of course, remember Viet Nam and the Watts riots of 1965 and riots in many cities in 1966.  It could be (and was) argued that he could have done more for civil rights than he did, that he was always a politician and looking out for votes, so that he was too cautious on many things.  But I certainly wouldn't say that he failed to administer the programs he passed.  

    Parent
    The truth is that when one gets (none / 0) (#106)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    down into the weeds of both FDR's and JFK's legacies, there were examples of poorly administrated initiatives.  The other truth is that the integrity of those initiatives like those that Johnson advanced were pretty impressively sound unlike some of the things we are seeing come out of this White House.

    Parent
    I primarily had in mind (none / 0) (#113)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:54:32 PM EST
    his anti-poverty programs which among all the GS initiatives were the ones most inconsistently administered, and others (inside his admin and outside observers) have noted the difference between the LBJ who was highly focused and energized to get the bill passed, and the LBJ who once the bills had passed seemed to forget about them and move on to other issues.

    Of course those others issues meant the VN War, and the WH record from a variety of sources indicates that it was about the time he escalated in Nam, 1965, that he began devoting most of his working time to matters involving that war, to the detriment of taking care of domestic issues.  Lyndon later tried to deny this was so by citing WH logs of domestic meetings, etc, but the fuller record shows he was intensely involved day-to-day in almost micro-managing our war effort, much as Jimmy Carter would later be criticized for micro-managing who got to play on the WH tennis court.

    Certainly, issues of poverty and the inner cities and economic justice were becoming paramount within the civil rights movement by 1966, once the legal rights bills had passed, but Johnson it turns out was more engaged on the daily management of his war.  As a result, anti-poverty programs were in some disarray or otherwise failling to live up to their promise.  They were also being underfunded -- LBJ agreeing to cut back in order to pay for VN.

    This general overview is written about in more detail in Doris Kearns interesting book from the 70s, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, a book that actually is mostly favorable to LBJ.  But not on the matters as I've outlined them above.  Bold vision he had, but often very flawed in the execution, and sidetracked disastrously by one other matter which obviously had more priority for him.  

    Parent

    I can't argue (none / 0) (#121)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    with you about the War on Poverty- he should have been more engaged.  And as I said, I still haven't forgiven him for Viet Nam.  But I will refer you to the list that inclusiveheart and I provided above.  Warts and all- the country would be a poorer place if most of those initiatives had not passed.

    Parent
    There were two key times (none / 0) (#124)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:38:01 PM EST
    in the 20th C for bold progressive legislation to pass -- from 1933 to 1937, then again when a liberal working majority was achieved in Congress in 1964-5.  And after Dallas, LBJ had a huge wind at his back, enormous good will from the public to pick up Kennedy's fallen standard and put his programs through Congress, as Johnson promised in his first major speech.

    We agree -- a bold vision is important.  But as with VN, a bold thinker also needs wisdom and sound judgment.  LBJ was often bold -- that almost came with the territory of his TX character and outsized personality -- but not always wise or sound in judgment.  

    Parent

    Well, what we seem to have now (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    is a president with neither bold vision, nor wise and sound judgment.

    Parent
    So sad (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    but so true. How i wish it weren't...

    Parent
    You seem to ignore (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    that a significant number of those 68 Senators were Dixiecrats.  You've also ignored the Senate rules of the day that required two thirds of those present to stop a filibuster.

    I give Obama no points whatsoever for the era or what you claim to be a modest advantage in Congress.  

    Real leadership was needed to reset the nation's course.  Didn't get it from Obama.  He doesn't get what a President should do when faced with significant problems.  The last damn thing a good President would do is give the other side, the side that played a huge role in bringing about our problems, a seat at the table and actually legitimize their lunacy.

    Parent

    Not at all, cal. (none / 0) (#175)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    After the landslide '64 election that produced a working majority liberal Congress, the Dixiecrats were outnumbered (more lib Dems plus mod-lib Repubs voted in) besides being in great disfavor from the public.  Ditto the far right of the GOP after Barry's disastrous showing.  Filibusters after the 64 CR Act would not be an obstacle.  Johnson and the Dems plus mod-lib Goopers had no real opposition for a couple of years.

    Great time to get lib legislation passed, and the anti-union big oil-backed cold warrior LBJ needed some of that to keep the liberals in his party at bay.  Besides, he knew he was about to launch his war in VN, and so counted on the libs being less upset about it having had their domestic needs largely met.

    Obama has had it tougher in Congress, and hasn't helped with his too-eager tendencies towards accomodating the opposition's wish list.  Still, an honest half-loaf with no unnecessary wars started with a president capable of some flexibility and persuasion and who is still liked by the public, is better than a rigid dishonest paranoid president who goes off the reservation to prove his manhood in a far-off and unimportant country and who is incapable of listening to reason to stop it.  That was LBJ.  And I haven't even got into the personal corruption, the coordinating with J. Edgar Hoover to stifle political dissent, the tapping of the phones of his own VP Hubert Humphrey, and other WH horrors.  

    LBJ was the Dems Nixon -- with a little bit of stubbornly stupid George W. Bush thrown in.

    Parent

    Still the GOP with nothing more (none / 0) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    than the House within their control are doing an amazing job of realizing their dreams.  There is a lot to be said for persistence and focus on one's dreams.  Even more to be said for having them at all.

    We lack visionaries.  We've taken being "reality-based" to such a degree that we are unable to change our station in life.  We've become the guy who goes to work everyday thinking that nothing will ever change or get better and guess what happens to him?  Nothing ever changes or gets better.

    Parent

    Agree. Our side (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    has produced too many focus-grouped incrementalist pols with little or no bold vision.  This was the problem with Jimmy Carter, who campaigned on little substance and liberals began to get concerned about who he was well before he took office.  Turns out he really didn't have many strong principles, and, well, we know the rest.

    Bill Clinton I think had a stronger vision, but given the peculiar political lay of the land in the 90s, the fierce and well-organized opposition in the GOP and MSM, and the tepid Dem party he led, he was forced to play defense too often.  

    Obama delivered some mighty lofty promises of bold leadership, and talked the talk of the importance of transformational presidents instead of incrementalist ones, but turned out himself to be a highly cautious field goal kicker and punter easily in the incrementalist camp.

    FDR and JFK were your last two great bold visionary leaders in the Dem party.  Obama seems to be setting out to be Ike with his moderate bipartisan agenda, working hand in hand with the other side, but if he's not careful he could end up like one-termer non-visionary Jimmy.

    Parent

    LBJ was a visionary. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    He was a risk taker.  The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, HHS, HUD, and countless other programs established under his vision were phenomenal.  His failure on the Vietnam front was perhaps a dividend of that belief in being able to conquer all problems and was surely a horror in and of itself, but the other things that came out of that leadership were pretty spectacular, imo.   And I guess that I think that anyone who could discount CRA, VRA and Medicare among other accomplishments because he failed on the international front is sorely lacking in much needed perspective.  Eisenhower started that war, Kennedy kept us in it and LBJ should have changed the policy, but if we hold him accountable, we should hold them all accountable.  I still don't know how it is that Democrats are held responsible for the "retreat" and not "winning" an un-winnable war when Nixon was the one who pulled out six years into his tenure after not winning some more.  Obama seems intent on continuing the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Do these people not read history?  Or is it that they really think that they are that special.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:53:37 PM EST
    Or is it that they really think that they are that special.

    They really do.

    Parent

    That may well be the case. (none / 0) (#114)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    We'll have to wait for the tell-all books to come out.  And if McNamara is any guide, it could take decades for them to admit that we were victims of their hubris.

    Parent
    Well, "risk taker" -- JFK's private (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:14:46 PM EST
    nickname for Lyndon was "Riverboat".  And run a major risk of a quagmire in VN -- which he'd been warned about by people he trusted -- he did, with eyes wide open.  And this is not quite true

    Eisenhower started that war, Kennedy kept us in it and LBJ should have changed the policy, but if we hold him accountable, we should hold them all accountable.

    LBJ did change JFK's VN policy of no combat units/withdrawal, and we know he knew about it, as per this Feb 25, 1964 phone chat with SecDef McNamara.  LBJ saying the previous (withdrawal) policy of Kennedy was wrong ("psychologically"), LBJ laying down the law to McN about how important VN is to US vital interests, LBJ dictating to McN a hard line to take to the press and public.

    Bold, but stupid vision.  Johnson had falling dominoes and Munich constantly on his rather unsophisticated (FP) brain, and because of his stubborn nature he couldn't be shaken from his bizarre fantasy of turning VN into one gigantic TVA project for his Brown & Root (Halliburton today) benefactors.

    Parent

    Forgot to note re (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:23:11 PM EST
    inclusiveheart's comment I quoted above:  all presidents in the VN War should not be held equally accountable.  Huge, fundamental difference between sending over some few thousand military advisers, strictly on orders not to engage in combat, which was the case under Ike and JFK, and then sending in Marines and US combat units by the tens of thousands, along with massive bombing, which is the escalation of the war that LBJ gave us.  Rather easy distinction to be made as among those 3 -- Johnson made the unforced and unnecessary "bold vision" decision to go to war, just after winning a massive landslide election where he'd campaigned as the peace-seeker as against Goldwater's war hawk.

    Blame also for Nixon?  Definitely, for dragging out a war for years longer than necessary, then getting the same peace table terms he could have gotten years earlier with NVN.

    Parent

    You know what there is not at all (none / 0) (#123)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    "a huge difference" between sending in military advisers aka CIA operatives sent in to cause trouble and havoc and sending in hundreds of thousands of military personnel - not in the end - you get the same bad results from both - SEE: Iran.

    JFK was lucky with the Bay of Pigs.  Lucky.

    The only difference between Johnson and his predecessors and his successors was that he was honest about what he was doing.  Stupid to be there at all?  Yes.  It was all stupid on a multitude of levels, but he unlike the others stood by his decisions.

    In any case, I'd take Johnson in Afghanistan right now working on real relief for the American people over this compromised and unhelpful domestic policy we have now, any day.  It isn't like the drones and poppy field assaults are all that different from the napalm attacks of the 60s - except that they aren't as well covered or shocking as they were then.

    Parent

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    I never ever thought LBJ would be redeemed in my lifetime but Obama seems to have done that along with resurrecting a party full of crazies who were in the death knells.

    I never could figure out for years why the rank and file Republicans disliked Nixon so much. I know now after Obama. Nixon was a Republican who instated liberal policy prescriptions and was carrying on a war he promised to end in his campaign. I wonder if Obama will run in 2012 on getting out of the middle east yet again.

    Parent

    Presidents are measured on their (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:08:53 PM EST
    lasting legacy.  The reality is that wars are fought by every President and almost every one is bad, bloody and pointless on some level and from some people's perspective.  Vietnam was bad, no doubt.  But I think that judging LBJ solely on the Vietnam War is a huge mistake and, frankly, plays into rightwing framing.  They were smart to play that up even as Nixon invaded Cambodia and started the process of selling the US to the Chinese.  I was one of the first people who got to see those Pandas when they first came to the US.  I was six.  What a great President!  Not.

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    mean to imply that Nixon was a good president. He certainly was not for the most part though he did do some good things it was largely all outweighed by Watergate and his VN strategy. Nixon had no good "visionary" policy prescription for anything it seems.

    Parent
    Just a bit of a pushback, inclusiveheart (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:27:40 PM EST
    While I have come to regard LBJ more openly since my youth, the bit about the size and length and deaths of the Vietnam War is something that you might not want to understate.  

    I agree that all wars are bloody, and very few are justified.  So...take away World War II from the equation (I consider it a just war)...and consider the 50,000+ of our soldiers killed in Vietnam and the many thousands more whose lives were wasted in many ways.  This was not Bosnia, Granada, or even Iraq   In trying to support your point about the legacy of LBJ, I think that it would help to own the travesty in Vietnam.  Perhaps, almost all Presidents have the infamous Achilles Heel, especially noticeable as we step back from the heat of the day.

    Parent

    You've no idea how deeply (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    i feel the cost in terms of lives of all of these wars.  If my comments suggest otherwise, then I have not communicated my position effectively.

    More than a million dead in Iraq not counting Americans.  Between the Soviets and the Americans how many dead and how much of civilized society has been lost in Afghanistan?  What was the real cost of Vietnam on both sides?  How many wedding parties are we blowing up with drones in Pakistan?

    When we fight terrorism in the modern era how much are we actually contributing to the passions that inspire it?

    You think I am not thinking about that part of the equation?

    I personally want it all.  I want an overall humane policy domestically and internationally.  I want world peace - lol.

    But given the choice between the two, I have decided over the course of my little "mid life" that those of us who are seeking peace have a better shot when the domestic situation is stable and that we have a better shot at domestic stability when we seek peace abroad.  

    The bottom line is that it is always better when people don't think that killing each other is the only solution to their problems.  It is always better when leadership suggests that leaving people for dead in their time of dire need is not a great idea.  It is better when leadership doesn't believe that blowing up bridges and rebuilding them in a foreign country is a more worthwhile endeavor than helping the people of our nation get by when taxed by extreme and difficult circumstances.

    Parent

    "Ineffectively" communicated (none / 0) (#146)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    ineffectively.

    Parent
    We're getting kind of o/t (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    here, but re distinctions betw advisers, and CIA activity escalating, and so forth: see Kennedy's last formal decision on VN with his NSAM 263, signed Oct 1963 which references a SecDef report by McNamara calling for the beginning of withdrawal of 1k troops by Dec '63, to have all out by the end of '65, versus the rather different NSAM 273 which Lyndon signed just a few days after taking over.  

    Johnson's 273, after some carefully worded language elsewhere which actually quietly and subtly reverses JFK's previous policy of withdrawal, calls for heightened US "covert" activity in VN.  A few months later, in early 1964, another presidential order would lead to more specific US covert action which, surprise surprise, led later in the summer to the (bogus) Gulf of Tonkin incident, a little encounter that Johnson almost certainly knew was imminent and which he intended, likely all along, to use for political purposes in the 1964 race.

    Johnson was hardly "honest" about what he was doing.  I just cited the GoT, the misleading of the public in the 64 campaign about his war intentions, then failing to inform the public clearly as he escalated in 1965.  He was an accidental president who gave us an un-accidental war of his own choosing.  More than just "stupid", it was a Bush-like full-blown catastrophe, only far far worse in terms of lives lost.  But like Bush he did stupidly refuse to admit he'd made a mistake year after year.  Insecure people are like that, and Johnson's insecurity and paranoia were world-class.

    Parent

    Impossible to hide millions of (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    draftees not hard to hide CIA operatives called "military advisors" for the purposes of deception.  But okay.  Johnson was keeping a big freakin' secret that no one in America caught onto.  Yeah right, that's the ticket.  Sheesh.

    The fact that the other three Presidents were never apologetic for their part is to their credit.  They did not accept the albatross around their necks. For my money, that's the only difference between Johnson and the other Presidents who actively participated in the miasma we know as the Vietnam War.

    Parent

    And I think that I have another (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    point to add here that has been really coming into full relief in recent years for me which is that wars are easy for man.

    People will go to war for no good or sane reason.  That part seems to be easy.  Going to war is easy.

    But building something good, lasting and valuable is the hard part.

    Doing good things and creating the conditions in which good can be accomplished is about the hardest, most complex and most elusive pursuit that we have as humans.

    So from where I sit, the Obama Administration are a bunch of slackers compared to the Johnson Administration.  Both have their futile wars that are more pissing matches than anything else and only one of the two fought the real battle which is trying to build some good stuff rather than the tempered, tentative and  tepid policy that we see from the current White House.

    I always said that the Bush Administration laid waste to the concept of our military fighting for a good democracy.  I can't say that I won't say that about the Obama Administration after seeing their real value system revealed in their policy decisions.

    Every President seems to have a war that they feel that they need to wage overseas, but the question in my mind now after watching quite a few of them is whether or not every President is willing to fight the good fight for the American people.

    Parent

    I'll agree with you on that (none / 0) (#126)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    And I would also throw a lot of blame on the US Congress who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, based on a whole lot of exaggeration and lies on the part of the LBJ Administration (sort of reminds one of the passage of the Patriot Act).  I would also add Harry Truman's name to the "lesser accountability" list along with Eisenhower and Kennedy.  When Ho Chi Minh asked for our help in gaining independence from the French, I don't expect that Truman would have sent him money or arms, but I do wonder what would have happened if we had pressured the French in 1946 when Ho was trying to negotiate with them, if we had not recognized the French-controlled South Vietnamese government in 1950, and if we had then not authorized military aid and the first advisors later in 1950.  (Link)

    Parent
    Jimmy Carter was a visionary (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:25:22 PM EST
    His approach towards energy policies, human rights, Middle East peace, etc required clear vision. He was clearly ahead of his times. His Presidency was less successful than what it could have been because he lacked the political skills to adequately deal with various powerful, professional special interest groups (often within his own party). His convictions were stronger than those of BC and LBJ. The shortcomings of his Presidency were more a matter of execution than a lack of vision.  

    Parent
    Jimmy Carter's (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    problems were multiple. One of his problems was that the minute he hit Washington, he started trashing his own party therefore pitting himself against them immediately and making it much harder to get legislation passed.

    Parent
    Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider (none / 0) (#147)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    during the primaries. So it is wrong to say that the "minute he hit Washington, he started trashing his own party therefore pitting himself against them immediately and making it much harder to get legislation passed".
    President Carter also does not get credit for some of his accomplishments-Camp David Accords, return of the Panama canal, SALT II, creation of the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education as cabinet level agencies, pardon of Vietnam era draft evaders, etc.
    Pres. Carter will always rank higher in my opinion than Pres. Clinton. However, he will always be savaged by many inside his own party (the lawyer and union types who always think that they should have more say than others about Democratic Party platforms as well as the instant gratification crowd within the party).

    Parent
    I wouldn't say he was (none / 0) (#150)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:23:51 PM EST
    much of a visionary leader, certainly not in any consistent way.  It was nice that Carter tried to bring a human rights element to FP, but going to Iran and toasting the Shah of all people as being a beacon of strength for the region -- well, he lost all credibility with me for that.  The insider accounts also have him wavering constantly betw the softer CY Vance camp and the harder line Dr Brezenzki, depending on who he had last talked to.  That doesn't sound like someone completely grounded in firm principles.  

    On DP generally, he led the de-reg effort and missed some great opportunities with a solid mod-lib working Dem majority in Congress to really get some great liberal legislation (health care obviously being the big miss).

    Incredibly stupid of him to alienate key liberals like Ted and Tip, and to do so often.

    Not as good as Clinton, but not as bad as some surveys rank him. Somewhere in the middle -- actually about where I put one of his favorite presidents, Truman, another Dem who left office highly unpopular.

    Parent

    Carter and Kennedy (none / 0) (#154)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:09:20 PM EST
    If health care legislation did not pass during the Carter Presidency, Ted Kennedy was equally responsible.
    I cannot understand why you rate the Clinton Presidency higher than the Carter Presidency from a progressive point of view. What was Clinton's vision? I am not being faceteous, I would seriously like to know. I heard him repeatedly talk glowingly about moving America to a "service economy", offshoring, of the need for employees to have portable 401K plans (because according to him an average worker would have to change jobs 7 times in a career) instead of pensions and the wonders of a stock market based future. How did that vision turn out? During his Presidency, the Democratic Party got handed over to the Wall Street interest groups in a way that had never happened before. During his Presidency very little investment was made in our science and engineering future (at a time when it was politically easier to make such investments)that would have ensured our prosperity over the long run.
    He slowed the regression of our policies towards the policies of more illiberal times by getting reelected. He should ofcourse get credit for it. However, nothing during his Presidency indicated that he was a big vision kind of leader from a progressive point of view.
     

    Parent
    I wouldn't agree (none / 0) (#158)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:17:52 PM EST
    about TK and JC being equally responsible for HCR failure -- that might have been more true of Ted during Nixon though.  Jimmy had a chance to follow through on his promise he apparently made to TK to go for bold legislation, but then ended up offering weak tea and rather late in the process at that.  Ted felt betrayed.  Meanwhile it was an opportunity missed when the getting would have been pretty good.  For that I think the guy at the top is more to blame and should be downgraded for failing to complete the deal.

    A little different w/Clinton, who had a tougher road on hcr with a more skeptical and less disciplined Dem Congress than Jimmy had.  But at least he tried, however clumsily, to pass a fairly robust bill.  Alas, even that was too much for unenthusiastic and influential Dems like Pat Moynihan.  Credit though for the attempt.

    On the economy, the basis for most of Bill's popularity, I think it's fair to downgrade him somewhat for short-sighted or just bad policy choices.  Though he was smart, and smarter than Carter probably, in the economics area at times he seems to have been more led by his aggressive group of advisers rather than to have led them as the more confident and knowledgable Kennedy did with his elite group.

    Clinton is not in my group of bold visionary leaders, but had more progressive instincts than Carter and more than most libs today credit him for.  He just was dealt a tougher hand to play in the 90s -- the oppo GOP and MSM hitting him daily on policy and personal matters, easily 2 or 3 times more determined and powerful opposition than Carter had to endure.  Still at the end we got 8 yrs mostly of peace and prosperity, with Clinton enjoying the confidence of the public in his job performance throughout, an important fact which gets severely undervalued in the typical presidential rankings.  An above average president.  Could have been higher had he kept his zipper up and had a stronger group of Dems in Congress to work with.

    Parent

    Hypothetical: Is it more about vision or results? (none / 0) (#137)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:52:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Good point, brodie (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    As one here who came of age during the LBJ administration and who supported the Great Society but openly rebelled against the Vietnam War, I understand your words. We gained a lot; we lost a lot.  And, after all that followed, it is why I say in wryness and with the hint of a dry chuckle: Life ain't perfect, and political life is even less so.

    Parent
    Agree, gained some things (none / 0) (#122)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:27:53 PM EST
    but unfortunately the downside with having someone like that in the presidency (bold but very flawed vision, deeply insecure, paranoid nearly to a clinical degree) was huge.  And it all enabled Nixon, Reagan and the resurrection of the GOP.

     

    Parent

    And yet this timid creature in the (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    White House whose primary goal has been to make peace between the parties at all costs has actually done more for Reagan and the Republicans than GHWB and GWB combined is somehow preferable in your eyes?

    I think I'll take the bold, flawed guy any day over the weak flawed guy who only allows the opposition to overrun any hope of even just holding the line.  You can forget about actual advancements with Obama.  All you can hope for with a character such as his is that the baseline won't be so overstepped that you've reached a point of no return.  And even that's probably too much to hope when the guy is so completely and utterly flexible about where the goal posts are placed on a given day.

    Parent

    I don't recall saying that (none / 0) (#149)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    exactly, but now that you raise the matter -- probably yes as betw just those two, even though normally I prefer the big vision guys.  The big difference being LBJ's Big War and the enormous cost in lives, 58,000 US and the 2-3 millions of Vietnamese, all of them unnecessary as the war was unnecessary.  Worst FP disaster in US history.  Very unwise to get the war started, something JFK worked hard always to avoid, and very unsound judgment not to disengage from it far sooner even when small school children could tell the US effort was not going to succeed.

    Then all the lying about it -- and LBJ's lying was consistent and on a huge scale; the more honest Obama has merely fallen short and disappointed in his reach and has not started any unnecessary wars.  Doubled down on one already in progress, yes, but with minimal damage relatively speaking, and it looks like he might actually hold to withdrawal beginning in July.  

    He also seems a lot more flexible in terms of war policy.  With Lyndon, it always seemed more personal, as if by withdrawing he was signaling his own cowardice or something.  And he never wanted to be the first president who lost a war -- again personalizing the issue unnecessarily and making it difficult for other to reach him using reason.

    I could go on -- but really by now most here should know I don't think much of LBJ, and like others who've looked into his entire record and who don't buy most of the recent revisionism, I feel he, like Nixon, never should have been allowed to get near the presidency.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#163)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:45:14 AM EST
    Bottom line is that the TL community doesn't like Obama.  That's odd but OK. But then you run across a comment that Obama "has actually done more for Reagan and the Republicans than GHWB and GWB combined."

    That's pretty amazing. And even more amazing is that it went without protest.  "Yes" I think you all are saying, "Obama is in essence worse than the Bushes".

    I feel a lot better about being one of the few contrarians here.  I think the perspective of history and the average voter is lost on political blogs, both on the left and the right.

    I remain interested in the reaction to a 2012 Obama win. The argument, I guess, will be that Obama tried to appeal to the vast middle instead of sticking firmly to more liberal policies. And that is somehow a huge failure.

    I don't think history and Obama's detractors will take the same view of that event.

    The sad thing is that I hate Obama's policies on Afghanistan, Gitmo and dozens of other things, but I feel compelled to push back against the overreactions here.

    The guy that just ushered through healthcare reform, repeal of DADT, etc., etc. is worst than Bush?

    Heads up: we're talking about a guy in a recession, two wars facing a crazy opposition who is polling 10 points higher than Clinton at a similar point.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

    And he's named HUSSEIN people.  What has to be terrifying for those on both the right and the left who want him to fail is that this is probably Obama's low point. He's only going to look better in the next 2 years than he does right now.  

    Anyway, back to the hateraid.


    Parent

    Hateraid? Quit with the tossed stupid (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by observed on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    salad, man.

    Parent
    Wrong ... AGAIN (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:08:21 AM EST
    Heads up: we're talking about a guy in a recession, two wars facing a crazy opposition who is polling 10 points higher than Clinton at a similar point.

    Take a look at your own link ABG.  Obama's latest numbers put him at 46% approval, which put him at exactly the same approval rating that Clinton was at in March 1995.  Yes, we know the constant refrain of excuses and rationalizations - Obama's had it worse than any President ever, and yet he's been able to accomplish the miraculous ... blah, blah, blah ...

    On the rare occasion that you throw in some facts to go with your opinion, at least get them right.

    Parent

    ABG, let's break this down: (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:45:26 AM EST
    Bottom line is that the TL community doesn't like Obama.  That's odd but OK. But then you run across a comment that Obama "has actually done more for Reagan and the Republicans than GHWB and GWB combined."

    That's pretty amazing. And even more amazing is that it went without protest.  "Yes" I think you all are saying, "Obama is in essence worse than the Bushes".

    It isn't a question of "liking" Obama; it's about whether I agree with his policies, because let's face it: I am never going to move in the same circles as Obama - he's never going to be a friend.  He is, however, going to have a lot to do with the quality of my life - of all of our lives - and he's going to have a lot to do with the direction the country is moving, what kind of democracy this is, and it's my feeling and belief that those are things that are too important to ignore on the basis of someone's personality.

    Obama's made it quite clear that he has an abundance of admiration for Ronald Reagan; this is coming through in some of his policies.  The reason people feel Obama has been worse than the Bushes is because he has taken some of the worst of their policies and put a Democratic stamp of approval on them, forever changing both the party and the country - for the worse.  He was the one who was supposed to make things better - to reverse bad policy, to bring transparency - and instead he has entrenched bad policy and added more opacity to government operations.

    I feel a lot better about being one of the few contrarians here.  I think the perspective of history and the average voter is lost on political blogs, both on the left and the right.

    If you were being a devil's advocate for the purpose of encouraging discussion, that would be one thing, but being a contrarian for its own sake doesn't seem to be serving you well - at least not here.  That being said, I understand the feeling - it's the one I had when everyone and their grandmother was bashing Hillary Clinton, and I felt an obligation to (1) do my own research on her body of work and (2) try to get those facts out there, even if people were going to close their eyes to them.  In the process, I found myself becoming a supporter - not that she was perfect, because she isn't, but it became clear quite quickly that not only could Obama not hold a candle to her, there were no indications that he was likely to ever measure up.  

    I remain interested in the reaction to a 2012 Obama win. The argument, I guess, will be that Obama tried to appeal to the vast middle instead of sticking firmly to more liberal policies. And that is somehow a huge failure.

    I don't think history and Obama's detractors will take the same view of that event.

    Here's the problem I have with the presumption of an Obama win, which ties in with the expression by a few people here that, no matter what he does, they're going to vote for him anyway: there is absolutely no incentive or pressure on Obama to ever listen to or address anyone's concerns.  As for what the argument for the campaign will be, I'm pretty sure that it won't bear much resemblance to what actually happened over Obama's first term.  I'm aware that the Republicans have almost nothing to run on, but the sad thing to me is that almost the only thing that separates Obama's governance and policy from the GOP brand is the crazy: the policies still suck on both sides.

    The sad thing is that I hate Obama's policies on Afghanistan, Gitmo and dozens of other things, but I feel compelled to push back against the overreactions here.

    There's a lot about those policies you hate that are defining us as a country and eliminating some pretty important things that used to distinguish the Democratic Party from the GOP; there is now so little check on power that I think there is real danger ahead for this democracy.  And I think it's important to consider that the mindset that allows those kinds of policies to exist does not switch itself off when it comes to domestic issues - it's bleeding into our own civilian justice system, and it's bringing a new level of cruelty to the lives of everyday people just trying to make it in tough times.

    The guy that just ushered through healthcare reform, repeal of DADT, etc., etc. is worst than Bush?

    I know you still believe the health whatever legislation was a triumph of liberalism, but it really just wasn't.  DADT?  That happened mostly as a result of outside pressure, not from Obama's hard work: he once again ran to the head of the line and pretended he'd been there the whole time (he does that a lot)

    Heads up: we're talking about a guy in a recession, two wars facing a crazy opposition who is polling 10 points higher than Clinton at a similar point.

    ABG, he knew this going in - it wasn't a big secret that got unveiled on an IMAX screen on Inauguration Day.  He had an entire campaign season and the transition to lay the groundwork and a plan for putting people back to work.  So, where are the jobs creation bills?  

    And, for the love of God, please stop pulling Clinton numbers out to prove that Obama's in fine, fine shape - because - and this is important - it has to stop being about engineering policy around elections, and making Obama look good.  Good policy that positively affects real people's lives is what I expect from a leader - and Obama's not leading: he's gaming his office to keep himself at the top of the political heap and it's hurting more people than it's helping.

    And he's named HUSSEIN people.  What has to be terrifying for those on both the right and the left who want him to fail is that this is probably Obama's low point. He's only going to look better in the next 2 years than he does right now.

    It's long past time to lose that argument; Obama has never shied away from his name, and you shouldn't be using it as an excuse.

    Finally, it's more important to me how the country looks, and how the lives of the people who live here look than how Obama looks; your unrelenting insistence that this is all about him doesn't serve you well, and because this is how Obama approaches governance and leadership, it isn't serving us well, either.


    Parent

    I appreciate the lengthy response (none / 0) (#186)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    but it unfortunately misses the point.  There are two things to consider in every political decision: the real world impact and the political calculus.

    It's important to keep these concept separate when discussing the theoretical (I tend to believe that Obama's moderate policies are generally correct on both fronts).

    But more directly, there is a tendency to detach these concepts when considering real world implementation.  There is a sliding scale with "politically popular" on one axis and "good policy" on another axis. The reality is that no matter how high on the good policy axis a proposal ranks, it is going nowhere if it doesn't hit a certain threshold on the "politically popular" scale.

    Shorter: If you care about the lives of Americans, your concern should be passing the best legislation possible, not making a stand for posterity. Much of what is demanded of Obama is simply impossible given congress and this political environment.

    Our real debate, as I have to repeatedly mention, is what you think the odds of success for some of this stuff actually is.  

    Parent

    If this were real debate, you would (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by observed on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    get into specifics, instead of combining empty posturing with offensive characterizations of Obama's critics---viz., "If you care about the lives of Americans, your concern should be passing the best legislation possible, not making a stand for posterity. "

    Parent
    part of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CST on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    Is that you have also yet to convince me (and others) that the deal was "the best legislation possible".

    I honestly think letting all the cuts expire would have been better for the middle class, and better for the economy.  That's not making a "stand for posterity" that's being concerned about "passing the best legislation possible".

    I also think you have a lower threshold for what you consider possible.  On hcr, for example, they could have tried reconciliation, but for some reason they took that off the table.  Now, I actually approve of that bill overall as I think it does some very important things, but I wouldn't say that it was the best legislation possible.

    Parent

    ABG, as much as you want to keep (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    separating good policy from political calculus, you seem to avoid the truth that when people see and feel the positive effects of good policy in their lives, they tend to reward those who made it possible.

    Take government spending, for example: if there had been a larger stimulus which included or was combined with a serious jobs program that put a lot of people back to work, increased demand which in turn created more jobs - reversing the downward spiral - what do you imagine the political consequence of that policy would be?  And how much hysteria would there be over deficits - how would that argument even get off the ground if people were working, unemployment was down and revenues were up?  Would anyone even be talking about entitlement cuts, and if they were, is there any doubt their words would fall on deaf ears?

    Part and parcel of good leadership is advocating for the policy one believes is the best for the most people - not just the policy that will get someone re-elected.  My concern is, and always has been, passing the best legislation possible, but from what we have seen over the last two+ years, there has been little or no effort on the part of this administration or the Dems in Congress to do that.  Instead, "politically possible" became more a matter of how they could pass "something" and still guarantee that their corporate donors would be happy.

    That's a very low standard, and neither acceptable nor excusable.

    When we had bare majorities, we were told we had to have bigger majorities and the WH; when we got those, we were told that it wasn't seemly to be too partisan, so we had to accommodate the other side.  We went from champing at the bit to get the policies we'd been wanting for years to being told it wasn't worth "fighting" for.

    Much of what has been asked of Obama is no more and no less than what he, himself, said he wanted to do, and without so much as a good-faith effort to achieve those goals, he declared that it just wasn't possible.  

    Finally, there's "moderate" and there's "so devoid of real principle as to be essentially meaningless in theory and damaging in practice."  Obama seems to have chosen Door Number Two, while trying to sell it as Door Number One.  Most of us are smart enough to tell the difference.


    Parent

    You missed part (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    You need to back up.

    We were told that, even though Obama had effectively taken over after November 2008, when Bush basically abdicated, that we had to wait for him to make decisions, but it was going to be a huge push for progressive policies. (Fine - he wasn't sworn in, so I'll buy that).  

    Then, after he was inaugurated, all we heard was "He's only been in office a month / 6 months / a year / 18 months...."

    Dear God Anne - the man has only had teams of people working on policy since 2007 - why on earth would you expect him to be able to articulate it yet?  What's wrong with you?  give him time.

    Parent

    Thanks for the reminder... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    all of which leads one place - that the policy we're getting is the policy he wanted.  A result that could have been foreseen, but that would have required an "eyes-open" approach to voting.  Just a quick glance at who comprised his economic team should have been enough, but no - these people were part of a massive Trojan Horse plan: he would get into the WH with these moderate-to-conservative advisors and then out would pop the real advisors - the liberals we'd all been waiting for.

    Only it still apparently has not been the right time to reveal the truth; and there's even been a suggestion that it won't be until his second term that it will be safe to undertake an historic liberal transformation.

    Except, at that point, there may not be any Democratic majority in the Congress, and then it will be, "oh, well - there's nothing we can dooooooo!  It's not his fault!"

    Ugh.

    Parent

    See that, Anne? (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    It misses the point.  Because you've completely made this about real world impact.  Where's your emphasis on political calculus, for crying out loud?  

    Apparently that's where it really matters.  Because everything, and I mean everything in his comments is about getting O re-elected.  Real world impact is only one factor in the political calculus. And a very small one at that.

    And if he's right, I'm going to want to crawl in hole and close it up over me.  Because I don't live in political calculus.  

    Parent

    I am not saying that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    worse than the Bushies.  Quite the contrary.  I am saying that he has been more effective than they were at instituting Reagan Republican policies.  That's really good in some people's eyes.  Not mine, but some people are happy like you are apparently.

    Parent
    "Reagan Republican policies" (none / 0) (#193)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    Being in the direct employ of the government in the 1980s and beyond--and being in a particular Reagan target aka enforcement program in EPA--I had the misfortune of seeing "Reagan Republican policies" up close. Ah, the stories we "survivors" could tell. One of those stories, btw, is how very different this Administration is on environmental & interior policies than Reagan. Emotions aside, I do not believe that the facts suggested about Reagan policies are supported by the evidence. Whether in lookin at SCt appointments, overall government agency policy, minority & civil rights, etc. there is a night-day difference in the comparison. (Speaking of which, the daylight provided under the actual implementation of FOIA compared to the Reaganesque need-to-know Justice Dept. interpretation is much brighter.)


    Parent
    On the two biggest issues in which (none / 0) (#198)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    we have seen the highest level of participation from this White House including the economy and healthcare, I think it is fair to say that between the trickledown economic strategy and the reliance on corporate insurers Obama has done wonders for the Reagan movement.  But there's more including low taxation of the wealthy, a willingness to cut social programs, the fact that cutting Social Security and Medicare are still "on the table", that farcical deficit commission, the too cozy relationship with Wall Street to the exclusion of Main Street - the Reagan Revolution hasn't even missed a beat under this Administration.  It carries on.  People are still being told that government is not the answer and that they have to bow to the great alter of corporate worship if there is any hope for them or this country.  It is all a mess of disinformation and brings Grover Norquist ever closer to his goal of drowning this government in a bathtub.  Which they'll never really do, but what any of us see of it will be severely minimized because the looting of the Treasury just makes it inevitable.

    The economic assault on the working and middle classes alone is a massive betrayal against the people of this country and Obama's economic team is leading the charge.  I am sorry, but the fundamentals here are all wrong from my perspective.

    Parent

    Those (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:53:35 AM EST
    numbers are not good. Mid forties? That was his approval rating last November and the party lost a record number of seats. I have found that the strongly disapprove and strongly approve numbers are much more representative of what people think of Obama than the top line numbers.

    Parent
    Hey ABG, I had my (none / 0) (#177)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:04:46 AM EST
    hands full just responding to a portion of the stuff about JFK and LBJ -- I can't catch and respond to everything.  Though I think in some of my responses I tried to show how LBJ was far more accommodating in resurrecting the GOP than Obama has been with his pro-Reagan rhetoric.  Ferchrissakes, the record actually shows Johnson might have preferred Nixon as his successor in '68, and might have done things behind the scenes to make that a reality.  Earlier in the primaries, once he'd withdrawn, he encouraged Rocky Rockerfeller to run and said he'd do what he could to back him short of an endorsement.  That's from Dallek's bio, iirc.  Quite a Dem that Lyndon!

    Obama, by contrast, is an actual Dem.  Not as bold in governing as I'd prefer, but at least not making bold stupid blunders either as Johnson did.

    We'll see about 2012 though -- Afghan decision re withdrawal in July will count hugely for me.  As will major choices on budget cutting this year -- he's already in hot water for keeping Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.  Too early for me to decide what I'll do, though sitting it out and letting the Tea Party take over the WH doesn't seem a smart move.

    Parent

    You and I have a very different (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    definition of what the Democratic Party should stand for, I think.

    Because if Obama is an "actual Dem" compared to someone like LBJ, then given the vast differences between their political philosophies and policy, you and I are of two totally different worlds.

    Parent

    Agree with all of that brodie (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    I have never argued he is perfect.  I think he's going to do the wrong thing on the wars.  

    But I see a lot of Hillary Sore Loserism in some of these comments (primaries were 3 years ago folks, let it go) and a lot of unrealistic expectations given the power and unity of the opposition.

    Parent

    And who (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    gave the opposition that power? Obama did. He is the one that wanted them to have a seat at the table.

    The fact that Obama has no leadership abilities has no bearing on Hillary or anyone else. You have extremely low standards for Obama. Most of the people here just want him to do the right thing for the country. Hillary is hardly ever mentioned here and Obama supporters like you like to bring her up simply because it excuses Obama in your mind.

    So obviously you think Reaganomics and austerity are the correct course for the county. That's the debate we have been having here with you.

    Parent

    People "see" what they want to see (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    But I see a lot of Hillary Sore Loserism in some of these comments (primaries were 3 years ago folks, let it go) and a lot of unrealistic expectations given the power and unity of the opposition.

    Even if it's entirely a function of their imagination.  As far as "letting it go", ...

    ... physician, heal thyself.

    Parent

    Christinep, I too (none / 0) (#127)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    came of age then, and I too rebelled against the war.  And I must agree with your words.  "Life ain't perfect, and political life is even less so."  Go in peace, sister.    ;-)  


    Parent
    I think Bill Maher has been reading (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    your bargaining posts.

    Parent
    funny (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    I saw that and thought the same thing

    Parent
    He's right. (none / 0) (#143)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:36:13 PM EST
    He's right. The gops would have. The gops are. The gops always will.

    Think Michael Collins. Collins negotiates Irish independence with the Brits. He's forced to settle for Dominion status and concede Northern Ireland to the Brits.

    Sinn Fein balks, insists on total independence or no treaty. Civil war ensues. Collins is killed.

    Ninety years later, the Brits still control Northern Ireland.

    Eighty percent of something is still better than 100% of nothing. Don't make the gops happy by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Gops can't win. The US can only lose.

    Parent

    More importantly IMO than what (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    Andrea Mitchell is sacrificing for the new austerity, what are Obama and the members of Congress sacrificing for this new austerity? Are they willing to give up their subsidized pensions and health care? Are they willing to give up the federal and state tax breaks on their government pensions? How about them voting themselves a pay cut and eliminating their budgets for travel and entertainment.

    Please give me an example of one perk that Obama has donated to this effort.

    I think the term "Shared Sacrifice" (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    is going to end up biting this admin in the a**.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    that they are going to give up nothing and Michelle Obama even took a trip to Vail, Colorado which was nothing but a PR disaster in a time when everybody else is being asked to sacrifice. The Obama's are just like the Republicans when it comes to all this: the rules are for thee no for me.

    Parent
    and how about that five million (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    dollar royal wedding/show of solidarity with working people awhile back?

    Of course that was different..

    Parent

    You're still (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    on that? That's a private citizen who also said he did not need a tax cut didn't he? And if you are so stinking concerned about that then you should really be spitting mad at Obama for not asking the Clintons to pay more in taxes which they WERE WILLING TO DO.

    This is all on Obama silly one. He's the one that made the deal.

    Parent

    It's all on an entitled (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    elite political class in bed with big money, silly one.

    the "Obamas", who you're obviously obsessed with, come and go

    Parent

    Did or did (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    not Obama make the deal?

    Parent
    I love it.. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    Michelle's trip to Vail is fair game, but who among us is so enlightened as to question the mysterious prerogatives of the House of Clinton?

    Parent
    I asked you (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    a question and I guess you refuse to answer it.

    Point one: The Obama's are in the White House. They are the ones asking for everyone to sacrifice and the Clinton's are not.

    Obama is the one who did the deal not Clinton. Obama could have rejected the deal but he decided to cave. A private citizen having an expensive wedding is the equivalent of a First Lady who lectures on austerity taking an expensive trip is the same thing in your mind?  On top of that, the people asking to "sacrifice" are the same ones that are footing the bill for the vacation are they not? Did you somehow pay for Chelsea's wedding? You sure act like it.

    Parent

    I voted for Bill (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    who's now so in bed with the corporations that they pay him 100 grand a pop in hush money at each speaking engagement.

    So I'm definately guilty all the way around.

    Parent

    You probably (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    also buy their products.  I bet you also patronize businesses that give money to Republicans, so we can blame you for that too*.

    * Using your logic.

    Parent

    Drop it or leave the thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:25:22 PM EST


    Parent
    All (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    ex presidents receive huge amounts of money for speaking if they are viewed successfully by the voters. I'm sure Jimmy Carter doesn't get that kind of money but he probably makes his selling books. Whatever. I doubt George W. Bush gets much money either.

    Parent
    All first ladies (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    take "expensive trips", though some obviously elicit a visceral reaction in certain Georgians more than others..

    Parent
    All (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    first ladies aren't asking the rest of the country to sacrifice are they? You lead by example. When George W. Bush seemed to think that the country should sacrifice for a war but he didn't I guess you didn't have a problem with that either did you?

    Parent
    like you, I'm guessing (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    I'm always a little deferrant to a white southern gentleman (they're always so gallant) in a position of power..

    Parent
    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    Pull out a condescending statement because you can't win an argument.

    Parent
    Drop it or leave the thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:25:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    is the president?

    Also:

    ""personal expenses are being paid for by the Obamas.""

    Parent

    Many (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    of the expenses of any president traveling are footed by the tax payers. She may have covered "personal" expenses but the tax payers are still covering many of the expenses like additional secret service etc.

    Parent
    that would be true (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    whether she went to vail or six flags.

    In fact, I would imagine it would be more expensive to cover the additional secret service needed at a place like six flags than vail.

    If you want to argue that they should just stay at home and not be allowed to travel on vacation than just say that.

    Honestly, I think we should be encouraging rich people to spend money like @ssholes.  Please!  Put some of your hard-earned dough back into the economy.

    To be clear, I have zero problems with the Clinton wedding either.  And I'm sure whoever provided the flowers/clothes/food/hotels has zero problems with it either.

    Parent

    Everyone drop it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:24:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Drop it or leave the thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:24:45 PM EST


    Parent
    All personal expenses (none / 0) (#43)
    by me only on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    for the presidents family is paid for by the family.  This is not unique to the Obamas.

    Parent
    I wasn't suggesting otherwise (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    Just pointing out that the "tax payer" isn't dishing out for Michelle Obama's lift ticket.

    Parent
    And why do you always play the same game? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    Just ridiculous.

    Parent
    Who gives a f*ck? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    Why do you always play this same game?

    Parent
    Cannot resist (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    inserting a comment <related to the above several comments.> Clearly, there is a sharp difference of opinion among two here about the morality/correctness of spending a certain amount of $$$$$ publicly when a country and its people are in the throes of major economic challenges. (In a limited way, it is almost a wedge.) In the broader view of what steps should have been taken by the Administration--what is too little, what is too much, etc.--people will and do disagree about the individual, and even broader brush, measures. The conundrum of a democracy/republic is that we can take very different positions in this matter, and it doesn't make us stupid, ignorant, or whatever.

    I tend to find myself in agreement with Angry Black Guy on the subject of the deal in December. It makes sense at this point to recognize that certain positions all the way around are set & firm (and have been for some time); and, it also seems reasonable to await the outcome in terms of economic indicators over the next several months. We will know soon enough, and we will know without demeaning all those who don't see it exactly as we do.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    unless your support for The Deal includes the spending cuts of March 2001.

    We demean ourselves if we pretend that The Deal is unrelated to the New Austerity.

    IF ypur support for The Deal includes the 50 billion in spending cuts now, then explain to me why you support tax cuts/spending cuts?

    Explain how that is progressive? Explain how it is good politics?

    You and ABG simply avoid these obvious questions, and, at least for me, I find it frustrating to discuss the issue with either of you because you avoid this question.

    I imagine others have reached the point of frustration with the two of you on this point as well.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    I believe (and that is what we are all talking abouot here...our individual beliefs/theories/speculation) that President Obama enhanced his political position nationally with his appearance and seeming willingness to make a deal. People disagree about that here; but, according to polls (and, while they are not much, they are the only evidence to date of public perception), the Administration's position is improved. From a negotiation standpoint vis-a-vis budget FY2012, that would give him more leverage than he theoretically would have had coming off of the "shellacking" of November last. IMO, it was "lemons to lemonade" in December.

    In terms of where the discussion goes from here.... I've stated my humble opinion, and I stand by it.  If that is not permissible here, I'll understand. Thank you.

    As to the theatrical give & take on the Hill now, it appears that both sides need to extricate themselves from going too far...and, that means each has to find something (however spun) to brag about. To date, the Democratic offerings (of the under #10B type) seem to reflect discretionary "earmark" cuts in large respect. My experience with the shutdown in 1995-96: Of the 700+ people in our Region, all but a handful (under 20) were closed out; it wasn't fun; people worried about whether they would be paid (ultimately, they were -- given the Gingrich fiasco); it hurt people.  Now: I still think that the odds are with the White House if there is a government shutdown.  So much depends upon who is seen as the most/least reasonable in the eyes of the public...because, in this gamble with people as well as money, the loser loses big time. One other thing: President Obama had/has a different burden in recent months even than President Clinton (for whom I have unbounded admiration as a political strategist and as President) because he was so easy to paint as "the other" "the socialist" the everything-you are-not."  So, the extra steps could be said to have been necessitated not just for political survival, but to obtain any partial agreement.

    I am a Democrat, BTD. And, a liberal. Always have been; always will be. We just happen to disagree.

    Parent

    Your Clinton Obsession is showing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:23:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Did you not get ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    ... the wedding you really wanted?

    There's got to be some reason for this obsession, ...

    ... beyong run-of-the-mill CDS, I mean.

    Parent

    I think someone broached (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    the subject of expressions of affection and solidarity on the part of the leaders of the party of working people..

    Parent
    Who gives a sh*t about either? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    You are for The Deal apparently.

    Parent
    Really dumb comment imo (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    And indeed, a perfect opportunity for people to deflect from the issue of The Deal.

    You fell for it.

    Parent

    C'mon Man (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    "The Deal was a terrible mistake and anyone who was honest when thinking about it knew this."

    Good, moral and smart people can disagree.  I think that when the dust settles, the cuts aren't anywhere near as bad as we'd feared. If that proves to be true, taking the Deal may have been the correct move.

    As I said from the start, we have no idea whether the deal was a good move and won't until next year.

    "we have no idea..." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    That's only true if one has no analysis skills, insight or ability to extrapolate.  Spirtual teachers say that one should live in the moment.  Somehow I don't think that's the same thing as refusing to use the brain that you've been given (by whatever entity: God or nature or chance).

    Based on the subject of this post, I was expecting to see you today.  With the same arguments as yesterday.  And the same set of so-called facts.  And by that I mean that you will ignore troublesome, inconvenient facts when someone tries to bring them to your attention.

    But y'all have a nice day now.  Bless your heart.

    Parent

    sj (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    That's a position that is beneath both you and BTD.  Take any argument or position that you believe and you are always going to believe that the world would see it your way if only they were thinking clearly, extrapolating, etc.

    BTD and you and I are all making the same arguments we've been making for months, which really proves my point.  No one has been proven wrong so everyone is in a position to say the exact same thing they've been saying from the start.

    My point to BTD and you: step your game up. In the battle of ideas, arguing that your opposition loses because "they just haven't looked at it closely enough" is really weak.

    You may as well yell "I know you are but what am I??!?!?!?" like Pee Wee and call it a day.

    Thanks for the nice day wishes.

    Why doesn't anyone ever ask God to bless my lower back.  It's killing me.  But thanks for the heart blessing I guess.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    It's really not beneath me.  It would have been beneath me if this was the first or second or even third time that you've weighed in.  But you only drop in on these sorts of threads, and never acknowledge much less rebut evidence presented to you.

    If you should start to deal with information presented to you, I would probably find you more interesting and worth taking seriously.  As it is, I'm only making a second comment because you specifically replied to me.  

    For other readers/commenters YMMV.  Just talking about mine.

    Parent

    SJ (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    [yawn]

    I weigh in on this regularly because it interests me and I know a fair amount about it.  I don't weigh in on Gitmo detention stuff, for example, because I have opinions but I do not have a good a grasp of the issues.

    I can go toe to toe with anyone on the topic of taxes, the economy, etc.  When someone makes a point and has facts to back them up, if I disagree, I do so with facts and a logical arguments.

    To be blunt you haven't made any point other than to say that you disagree with me and have provided no substantive response.

    And I have no need to have your approval to be taken seriously.  Either you engage me or you don't. If not, godspeed to you.

    If you are going to engage, you'll have to do better than juvenile pokes and prods.

    Save that for the kiddies. I am here to have a real discussion, not engage in the liberal Red State equivalent of discourse.

    Parent

    Hilarious Comment of the Day... (3.40 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    In a toe-to-toe between you and my dog, I would put money on my dog - mainly because she is the sweetest yellow lab I know, and not because she knows more "facts" than you do - I would put you about even in that regard.

    Sorry if that's harsh, but I've lost my patience with comments that focus on someone's personal political fortunes and a too-bad-so-sad attitude toward those that pay the consequence for your political hero's poor policy-making decisions.

    Yes, there are a lot of opinions offered here, but many of them - quite a lot of them - come with a level of fact and substance you are apparently not prepared to offer yourself.  

    You are not here for a real discussion, you are here to see if anyone's ready to buy what's likely to be the Campaign 2012 plan.  News flash: I'm sure you could sell that to the Booman crowd, but you're going to have to step up your game to ring up many sales here.

    [rolling eyes]

    Parent

    You go Anne (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    You busted out your big words and compared me to your dog.

    Please.

    I offer as many facts here as anyone else. No one can say otherwise. Every post I make here is well thought out, well reasoned and when required contains plenty of statistical back up.

    I'm not a simpleton Anne. Others wade into these discussions and get angry (pun intended) when people start to call them names or say that they are less intelligent or whatever.

    I am secure in who I am and my arguments so equating me to your dog is a waste of both or our time.

    If I am not mistaken, you have provided no facts or analysis to this discussion.  Before questioning my inability to provide facts and substance, how about you work on yourself.

    I am looking for an argument you've made on this chain with which to disagree, and there are none.

    Because you've said absolutely nothing.

    Parent

    I'm sorry that (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    you were insulted. Apparently all these people who think they are smart are incapable of avoiding the insults.

    Proving they are not as smart as they think they are.

    And you ABG  are wrong about The Deal.

    Parent

    As always BTD (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    Thanks for trying to elevate the debate.  I understand that people disagree and want to lash out a bit, but there is just no need for it here. It's too good a blog.

    In any event, I hope for all of our sakes that I am right and you are wrong.  It's better for everyone if that's the case.

    Parent

    Horsesh*t comment Anne (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    Stop with the insults or leave the thread.

    Parent
    Just think of how great your lower back (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    would feel if you are forced to do day labor until you are seventy.

    Parent
    So now (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    I don't know what I am talking about because I am either a teacher, a drug counselor, a corrections facility administrator, a union coordinator, a nurse, a word processor, a lawyer, or any one of a thousand other jobs that don't require me to work in the sun?

    Man.

    That's a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about.

    Parent

    No one made any claims as to what type (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    of work you do or don't do. I'm shocked. ABG once again making a false claim. Will wonders never cease. :-(

    Parent
    You assumed (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    I wasn't a day laborer. I could be sending this from my phone on a roof somewhere.

    Parent
    I didn't assume anything (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    You chose to misinterpret my comment.

    Just think of how great your lower back would feel if you are forced to do day labor until you are seventy.

    Right this very minute people are not forced to work until they are 70 to receive SS benefits.  Forcing people to continue to work until they are 70 is one of the recommendations that Obama's blue ribbon deficit commission has suggested that has found support from politicians from both parties. 40% of the workers in the U.S. do physically demanding work. Whether or not you fall within this group, you may want to consider the ramifications if this comes to pass.

    Parent

    bless your heart! (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    An old southern way to say something like, "Pore ole soul; he just don't know no better!"

    Parent
    How are you going to judge whether the deal (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    was a good move next year? Are you going to base your judgment on whether or not Obama wins reelection or how this decision and the subsequent cuts impact the lives of the poor and middle class? Will you consider "The Deal" a success if more jobs are lost due to budget cuts but Obama still manages to win reelection? How about if the Dems lose both houses of Congress due to these choices but Obama still wins?

    Maybe we should deal with how "The Deal" impacts lives this year even before Congress cuts spending on domestic programs. While Obama's tax cuts provide those in the upper 2% even greater tax savings than those implemented by Bush, people making under $20,000 are paying higher taxes this year after "The Deal". Taking from the poor to give to the rich is not what I consider a correct move but then again I'm not trying to raise a billion dollars for a reelection campaign.

    Parent

    I will base it upon (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    The status of entitlement/deficit discussions (long term success) and the performance of the economy (short term success).

    I understand that the deal added between $200-$300 extra a year burden on the poor and I strongly disagree with that occurring.  I wish Obama had been able to correct that issue.

    The assertion you are really making is that the $200-$300 increase is worth scuttling the entire deal.  Although I agree with you that the tax increase on the poor is terrible, I do not agree that the alternative (no Deal) was preferable for any number of reasons you are unlikely to value very highly.

    Parent

    My assertion that "The Deal" (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    at the time of implementation was an extremely bad deal for poor people. IIRC SS reduction in benefits was another thing that would be regrettable but also something you were willing to sacrifice on the alter of Obama. In fact, to date, I have yet to read of anything that would negatively effect the poor and middle class that wasn't expendable if it would result in Obama's reelection.

    Parent
    Let's set the parameters correctly (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    You see an alternative world where we get a better deal on the issues you are concerned with.

    I see a world with an even more conservative congress and odds that the deal struck now is even worse for the middle class and poor.

    Again, whether you see the Deal as good depends on a lot of base assumptions. If we don't agree on the base assumptions, we aren't going to agree on the Deal, regardless of how good our respective arguments are.

    Parent

    I see a world where people making (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    under $20,000 a year can barely survive and did not need a tax increase. I see a world where the poor cannot afford the additional loss of services that will result from the cuts to domestic programs. I see a world where the president and the Democratic party cares more about catering to the rich in order to raise obscene amounts of campaign contributions then in the welfare of 98% of the people in the U.S.

    Obama had the presidency and a majority in Congress for the first two years. The tax cuts for the poor and the middle class could have been made permanent at any time. Obama and the Dems chose not to take that action. Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress could have chosen to adopt an aggressive stimulus package to help the economy and provide jobs. They chose not to do so. They lost seats in Congress as a result. Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress could have chosen not to tax the good health care benefits that union members gave up wages to maintain. They chose to give a big FU to union members and knowingly took action to reduce their health care benefits. The Dems lost the MA Senate seat and other seats in Congress as a result. The number of people who self identify as Democrats has continued to diminish since the 2008 election.  

    While Obama may maintain the presidency, the odds are that the Dems will definitely lose their slim majority in the Senate. By the time that Obama is through, the Dems will be back in the minority for years to come.

    Parent

    Priorities (none / 0) (#74)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    He viewed healthcare reform as more fundamental and sacrificed the tax fight for it.  I agree with that choice, but it clearly had consequences.  No way he was going to pass healthcare and beat the GOP on tax for the wealthy in the first two years. It was not going to happen given his slim senate majority.

    Parent
    Slim Senate Majority? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    He had a filibuster-proof 60 votes.

    Parent
    You forget, jb (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    "60" became the new just barely "50."    ;-)

    Parent
    Ah, yes (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    We can't pass any truly progressive legislation unless we have 85 Democratic Senators.  Even then, there would be excuses. ("We don't have 100 Senators!"

    Parent
    Filibuster Proof Majority (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    In a world where Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Lincoln are real democrats.

    Let's keep it real.  We didn't have a majority.  We had a bunch of democrats and enough independents to keep republicans from having a majority.

    There is a huge difference that showed clearly on healthcare.

    Parent

    When one advocates for good policy (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    One would not have a hard time getting votes from both ends of the (Democratic) political spectrum.

    And by which, you just prove my point - 85 Senators wouldn't be enough for you.  You would still make excuses.

    Parent

    What good policy (none / 0) (#86)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    on healthcare would've secured 60 votes?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    But that's not my job to figure that one out.  The point was, Obama did not have a "slim Senate majority" and that cannot be used as an excuse for why the tax cut problem had to wait until December 2010.

    Badly played all the way around.  11th dimensional chess was more like hopscotch.

    Parent

    jbindc (none / 0) (#91)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    I am laying out for you why it happened the way it did.  Obama started pushing healthcare about 4 months in and that was the central focus for two years. It took almost all of his political capital to pull it off.  If you look at the timeline and the elections, it has to wait until after mid-terms.

    But I think this is all irrelevant anyway because the extra time wasn't going to result in more GOP concessions anyway.  We are dealing with a party that views compromise as weakness. They are not rational game theory participants.  Normal theories of negotiation do not apply to Tea Party types.

    Parent

    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    "Normal theories of negotiation do not apply to Tea Party types"

    What about mad man theory?  aka Reconciliation.

    Also, last I checked, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson aren't part of the tea party.  Although I grant you sometimes they act like it.

    Parent

    And it will come to bite him in the end (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:01:11 PM EST
    It clearly illustrated why "experience matters".

    Parent
    I disagree obviously (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    He'll win a second term because people like him, they generally like his policies and from a big picture perspective, given the economy and his opposition, he's had a very successful 2 years and looks to continue to do so.

    Now this is the part where my Obama fandom comes out, but I think I am right.  I think in November 2012 he'll be celebrating a 2nd term and many of his haters on the left will be trying to determine where that puts them politically in the big scheme of things.  I imagine the PUMAs will re-emerge and be combined with others to make a real push in 2016 for a candidate that is further left.  And I think they will succeed in getting a more liberal nominee and then that person will lose.

    Just my prediction.  Hopefully TL is around then so I can get credit for it when it happens!

    Anyway, it's one thing to argue that you were right about Obama as a former Hillary or Edwards supporter during the period of 2008-2011.  It's another when the public has had years to see what he's about and votes for him again. His popularity has remained incredibly stable, in part because I think people fundamentally realize that he was never going to be able to cut taxes for the poor, raise them on the rich, save the automakers, end the wars, keep the middle east from chaos, save all entitlements, pass the public option, repeal DADT, repeal DOMA, nominate 3 super liberal supreme court justices, close Gitmo, repair our moral standing in the world, eradicate gender inequality and prove to the birthers that he is an american all in the face of the Tea Party and Foxnews and Sarah Palin and all of that.  

    Just wasn't going to happen.

    I think the average, moderate voter looks ate what he inherited, looks at what he has accomplished and thinks "not perfect but he's done a pretty decent job".

    For a black guy named Hussein who walked into two wars, a recession and an insane opposition party with control of the radio and the largest cable new network, that ain't bad. It ain't bad at all.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:48:09 PM EST
    your last paragraph explains everything. You have the lowest possible standards for Obama because of his name and his skin color.

    He knew there was going to be two wars etc. None of that was a big secret. If he couldn't handle it, he shouldn't have run for president.

    Parent

    ABG, at what point does this become (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    about us, the people, and not so much about Obama's political fortunes?  I ask that because, all through your comment, you are focused on only one thing, it seems: Obama getting re-elected.  How many people can be hurt by his policies and it still be worth asking him back for more of those policies?

    We disagree that he has had a successful first two years; when he jumped into "reform" of the health whatever system, he should have been working for policy that would create jobs.  A more robust stimulus should have been part of that equation, but wasn't.  At a time when we had those majorities, and public opinion, going for us, he acted as if we didn't.

    And since the Congress has nothing to do with his extension of so many of the worst of the Bush policies, is there an excuse for him doing so?  I don't think so.

    All those things you say people fundamentally knew he couldn't do?  Was that a good enough reason not to lead on those issues, to work to accomplish those goals?  I don't think so.

    I think the average voter understands that all these things Obama inherited he knew about when he ran for office; it was no secret - and in fact, a lot of people voted for him because he was going to take these things on - and bring change to equation.  When you sell yourself as being the one who can do what people want you to do, don't you think you have an obligation to do whatever you can to fulfill your promises?

    You reveal a lot by reference to PUMAs, and I'm still trying to figure out why you seem cheered by the possibility that a more liberal candidate would run in 2016 - and lose.

    As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't be hard to find someone more liberal to run in 2016 - you'd just need to find a real Democrat.

    Finally, I should apologize for comparing you to my dog - although, all things considered, she's a pretty cool dog, so there are worse things you could be compared to; normally, I take the time to re-read and think about whether I really want to hit the "Post" button, but I was running out of the office and didn't.

    Parent

    It is about us (none / 0) (#166)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:56:16 AM EST
    I believe that Obama's policies, on the whole, are greatly beneficial. By almost any standards, he has governed in a largely liberal way, I believe that liberalism is the preferred ideology, therefor I think his presidency has been good for us all.

    The difference between me and many here is that they tend to focus on certain issues where Obama has taken a more moderate approach and assert that those issues represent his presidency and accomplishments.

    I see the more liberal things that he's done as being representative of his presidency.

    I mean how crazy is it that the longest lasting impact a president can have (the nomination of supreme court judges) isn't even discussed in places like this these days.  The man nominated and passed two liberal women (although not as liberal as some would like, one a hispanic, who are very young and likely to be around for decades. It's incredible.  Yet it is completely forgotten around here because of The Deal and that being the defining and only test of his presidency somehow.

    I am no smarter than anyone else here. I am just pointing out that these long lists of gripes about Obama that omit anything the man has done positively are obviously flawed.  

    He's just nowhere near as bad as being portrayed and I think history and his reelection will confirm that.

    Parent

    G.W. Bush was a two term president (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    By your logic, since Bush won two terms, he passed great legislation that the people loved. Heck he was even able to pass his agenda with much smaller majorities and even when his party was in the minority.

    Parent
    Very good point (none / 0) (#167)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:01:24 AM EST
    Bush won because his party understood that, although not a perfect beacon of liberal values, he largely did what the wished. They were able to put the prescription drug benefits and other stuff in the proper perspective, and they would argue that long term his policies will pay off.

    We of course disagree.

    However, I believe the exact same thing will happen with Obama on the democratic side.  He is not perfect but he has done a LOT to advance the liberal cause, and he will be re-elected as a result.

    The upside is that we here all believe in liberal causes so even if he's not doing everything perfectly, he's moving the ball in the right direction.

    Those that believe Obama is making the country less liberal don't have very good arguments IMHO.

    Parent

    With very few exceptions, Obama has (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    adopted conservative polices and rhetoric. He has made statements that have validated the more extreme elements of the Republican Party while he or his surrogates have insured that anything that does not fit in with his rightward leaning corporate agenda is portrayed as extreme.

    You put forth health insurance legislation that both Obama and Pelosi have publicly stated is based on past conservative plans as liberal. You ignore or rationalize the Obama Tax Policy which provides more tax breaks for the rich while increasing the tax burden on the working poor. You ignore or rationalize Obama's rhetoric on adopting Republican policies on deficit reduction that justifies reducing domestic spending to pay for the tax give aways to the rich. Government employees working in the trenches must survive with a pay freeze because the country cannot afford a tax increase on millionaires and billionaires. Charter schools are being promoted and teachers are to be held responsible for results even though Obama's domestic policies result in class sizes of 35 to 60 students. You have in the past justified the proposed reductions to SS as a price people will have to accept at the alter of Obama.

    He has definitely moved the country in a rightward direction on domestic policy and embraced or expanded some of the most draconian abuses of the Bush administration on civil liberties. Based on the entirety of his policies, your arguments that Obama is pursuing a liberal agenda is not fact based. Even you cannot maintain the facade as in your ongoing cheer leading efforts you bounce back and forth from making erroneous claims about how liberal Obama is to putting down liberals and smirking that Obama gearing his policies to so called moderates will win the day for Obama.    

    Parent

    You gotta love that (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    "By almost any standards, he has governed in a largely liberal way"

    ...technique ABG regularly uses.  Oh wait, as a long-time liberal, I find it rather smarmy, actually, to use this approach to lay the mantle of liberalism on O.  As if declaring it makes it so.  As if I would just believe him instead of my own lying eyes.

    And if ABG responds to your comment in any substantive way (other than just using declarative sentences) I will treat you to a virtual cocktail*.

    -----

    *Don't know where yet, but there has to be a virtual cocktail lounge somewhere, right?

    Parent

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    His popularity has remained incredibly stable, in part because I think people fundamentally realize that he was never going to be able to cut taxes for the poor, raise them on the rich, save the automakers, end the wars, keep the middle east from chaos, save all entitlements, pass the public option, repeal DADT, repeal DOMA, nominate 3 super liberal supreme court justices, close Gitmo, repair our moral standing in the world, eradicate gender inequality and prove to the birthers that he is an american all in the face of the Tea Party and Foxnews and Sarah Palin and all of that.  

    Just wasn't going to happen.

    But I do like the way you mix imaginary and impossible objectives with the things Obama actually said he would do.

    Do you think that really fools anyone?

    Keep buying that straw in bulk.

    Parent

    I think you have a very rosy (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    And not completely accurate picture of him and how well his policies have been received.

    Parent
    One of the most powerful, direct comments (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    that I've seen in a long time. Theory is one thing; fact (especially historical healthcare facts) are another.  Thank you, vicndabx.  ( Note: I guess what gets me through the roof is the--and I'll say it-- idiotic belief that "we can get whatever we want if we just hang tough." People talked about idealism, but some purists were more than willing to relegate those with pre-existing conditions, caps, and no access to the same situation that they have seen for years. Damn. The reason I support how far we have come is: We have moved, we have moved forward...at long last.

    Parent
    Just how far have we come on health care (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    The number of people without health insurance in September, 2009 was 46.3 million. The number of people without health insurance in September, 2010 was 50.7 million.

    Many states are considering dropping people from their Medicaid roles or implement cost-cutting measures like greater cost-sharing or a sliding scale of premiums that would make Medicaid unaffordable to many low-income Americans. The urgency of now (2014) has resulted in less actual health care for millions more Americans.  

     

    Parent

    Lets see what happens as the health care act (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    is implemented. What you describe, I believe, was part of the conflagration leading up to the historic battle that resulted in the reforms--again, see items such as removing the $$ cap, the phasing out of the pre-existing conditions approach of infamy, the presumption/reality against recission other than provable-in-a-court-of-law fraud, the extension of policyholders' coverage to adult children to 26, the 85% requirement as to $$ that must be directly put into health care from amounts received, the opening of more competitive exchanges similar to the $$ policy-cost reduction approach used by the fed.govt., expansion of medicaid in the process, the expansion of preventive care as part of a no-cost to consumer, and the required expansion of coverage that would address your immediately stated concern.

    Like the late Senator Edward Kennedy, my personal preference would have been for a broad & powerful government approach. But, he came to realize his mistake in not agreeing to an earlier deal (compromise) years ago; and, I fully support the compromise that could be had rather than losing everything for the sake of position once again.  There are too many lives--people that I have seen suffer very close up--that are involved here; this compromise--with each implementation step--should ease some of the emotional, financial, and very real pain experienced heretofore. Lets see what the fuller implementation realizes in 2014.

    Parent

    The question is more to the order of (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    will the insurance legislation will be implemented in 2014. 4.4 million more people are suffering right now. With states dropping people from their Medicaid rolls that number will continue to increase until 2014. As you know even the existing plan is not an universal plan. It only covers 32 million people. As the number of people without health care increases, so does the number who will remain without health care even if 32 million more people receive insurance coverage. Insurance coverage does not mean once a person is forced to pay a premium and assume 30% of the cost of services (70% actuarial value norm), a person can afford actual health care.

    If one person is helped by this program and twenty more are forced to pay more in insurance premiums for less coverage to the point that they can't afford actual care, your so called implementation step is IMO a step backwards.

    Parent

    I think your repsonse (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:16:12 PM EST
    goes better with Anne's.

    Parent
    Explain why it was good (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    in light of the inexorable March spending cuts? Why not do The Deal NOW?

    Parent
    Why the Deal was Good (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    1. Lame Duck accomplishments would not have occured (DADT, START, unemployment benefit extensions, etc.)

    2. Catastrophic impact of uncertainty in Q1 because no one would know their tax rates and the expiration of everyone's cuts would freak middle america out.  I believe it would have been a disaster to move into 2011 without tax breaks for the middle class.

    3. With a more conservative congress, the eventual tax compromise might have been even worse.

    4. Minor stimulative effects of tax breaks for wealthy (very minor but I believe there are some).

    5. Establishment of Obama as a reasonable negotiator, which will be crucial in the event of a government shut down.  His poll numbers need to be as high as possible going into it or things could go south quickly.

    Etc.  

    I could go on and on and probably list another 10-12, but the bottom line is that you and I value these things differently. We see different outcomes from various actions.

    Of course the answer is obvious if we take all of your assumptions as fact.

    I don't have a problem with your positions although I disagree. You could easily be right ultimately. But so could I.

    The difference is that I (and those like me) are objective enough to see the flaws in our position.

    Your certainty shows a logical weakness in your arguments.

    Parent

    Your list (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    seems to envision March 2011 as being some great distance from December 2010. It is 3 months ABG.

    None of your list makes sense in the context of 3 months of time. Indeed, it is a silly list.

    Parent

    The list makes sense (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    if you look at congress and ask yourself whether the tax bill it would pass would be better or worse for the middle class.

    My assumption is based on the fairly supportable idea that 2010 Congress is more liberal than 2011 Congress and thus any bill passed by 2011 Congress would be even worse.

    The biggest question I have is how you believe that Obama's leverage would be so much greater now that he would be able to make all of those nice new Tea Party people disappear and forget everything they came to DC to do.

    Parent

    I'm not convinced (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    that this is necessarily true

    Lame Duck accomplishments would not have occured (DADT, START, unemployment benefit extensions, etc.)

    You seem to have seen the Deal as inevitable given the circumstances.  I disagree...

    Catastrophic impact of uncertainty in Q1 because no one would know their tax rates and the expiration of everyone's cuts would freak middle america out.  I believe it would have been a disaster to move into 2011 without tax breaks for the middle class.

    Catastrophic?  That seems like an overstatement to me.  


    Parent

    lilburro (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    There is plenty of room to disagree here. But take a step back for a second and imagine that my assumptions are correct.

    BTD and others often argue that there is no way the Deal could EVER be the right choice, under any circumstances.

    My goal in these discussions is not to change anyone's mind. That's not going to happen.  It is to suggest that there is a logical strategy to Obama's choice that makes a lot of sense if you believe in a slightly different set of assumptions.

    It is the difference between calling the Deal a really stupid decision and calling the deal a well reasoned decision that may not work.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    the time to do something about raising taxes on the rich was before the midterms, I'll give you that.  So I realize this isn't all President Obama's fault.

    I think at this point in the budget discussions Pres. Obama has been established as reasonable, sure...but he has also ceded a lot of ground.  Even if he wins a government shutdown, there are still cuts.

    And yes, Obama was facing a much more conservative Congress...but he could've done so with the question "are you going to block taxes on the middle class?"  The idea that we could ever raise taxes on anybody has been completely absent from this discussion.

    Conservatives are insane...but they have been for 20 years.  It's not like any of this is new information.  I personally believe Obama could play a greater role in framing the debate and drawing it to the left.  He's going to have a hard time getting elected, and getting Dems elected to help him, if the economy is still really, really awful in 2012.  People are not going to be impressed by rationalizations.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    This Union business in Wisconsin has showed me that the republicans are so insane that voters are likely going to value Obama's reasonableness, even if the economy is not improving.

    If Obama can say that unemployment is down a percent from when he took office, let's say, he'll be in good shape.

    The GOP managed to target the one group with the power and money to win the election for Obama and motivate them with a direct attack on their very existence.

    It's amazing and I think that the Governor of Wisconsin may have just secured Obama a second term.

    Parent

    Wow, read up again about Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:34:39 PM EST
    as that is not at all the mood.  They're recalling all around, anything in sight, in a massive "throw the bums out" brouhaha.  Everyone is galvanized.  Everyone, on both sides.

    And in Wisconsin, if the GOP turns out in 2012, as it did not in 2008, that will make it very tough for Obama.  You didn't think that 2008 was typical, did you?  Wisconsin was the closest state of all in the preceding elections.

    Parent

    Towanda (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    I respectfully disagree.  The news stories I am reading all indicate that Obama and the dems are gaining in popularity while the GOP is falling.

    Here is the latest: Link

    Parent

    Well, when you read the Beltway Boyz (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    instead of local media, you can be as surprised as they were by the building mood in Wisconsin that were just awaiting a match -- and you can be as clueless as the nonlocals continued to be.  

    By the way, local media in Madison report that the national media went home more than a week ago.   They must think it's over.  They must also not be reading the local media -- not only in Madison but in Milwaukee, to give you a glimpse of the incredible range of opinions and polarization there. And polarization is not good for any pols.

    Next, you'll be linking to some of the national tv coverage using stock footage for more than a week now -- including the story that showed palm trees in Wisconsin in winter.  The locals loved it.  So inflatable plastic palm trees have become standard in the continuing protests.  I look forward to photos of palm trees amid the "tractorcade" of farmers coming to town next.

    But NBC probably will tell you that those tractors are SUVs.

    Parent

    Would you like a local poll (none / 0) (#168)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:03:59 AM EST
    saying the same thing?

    Parent
    There are so many local polls (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:57:29 AM EST
    all over the place, depending upon who is paying for them.  But sure, send your source to your poll -- and include the source of funding for it, too.

    Then we can play "my poll vs. your poll" endlessly.

    Parent

    in fairness (none / 0) (#179)
    by CST on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    I think ABGs point is decent in that this is now bigger than Wisconsin.  And on the national scene the GOP has come out looking like the bad guys.

    That's why all those other Republican governers have backed off.

    Since 2012 is a presidential/national election, all of this will factor in.

    Honestly, I find a lot of the predictions about 2012 to be naive.  Bottom line, it's kind of hard for a president to lose re-election.  And I don't see anyone coming out of the GOP right now who could both win the primary and pull off the national election.

    Parent

    CST, one thing to keep in mind that (none / 0) (#180)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    I can't help but think will hurt Obama and the Dems is his decision to freeze federal worker pay; while federal workers are not - with some exceptions - unionized, they are public employees, after all.  In every statement I have heard from Obama, he always emphasizes that he "had to" freeze pay, and he's segued right from there to the point that "we all" have to make sacrifices - as if the public employees and union members in Wisconsin and other states have not already made sacrifices and acknowledged the difficult economic conditions.  

    Where this has left Obama is pretty much painted into a corner, where he can't be too supportive of the unions or the public employees lest it cast his decision to freeze federal worker pay in a rather hypocritical light.

    And let's not forget about what's happening in Ohio - yes, it made the Republicans look terrible, in that they had to reconfigure their own committees in order to have enough votes, but has anyone heard Obama weigh in on this?  I know that I haven't - I could have missed something, though, so am open to consider what he might have said.

    I think all of this is leaving people with few options in 2012; unless Obama gets a primary challenger, where some of these things can get an airing, Democrats, union members and public employees are going to be left with the untenable option of voting for the party that wanted to more or less abolish union representation, while also cutting pay and benefits, and the (national) party that pretended unions were not under attack, hedged on how much sacrifice was enough, and accepted the necessity for federal pay freezes.

    If things don't turn around - and I think the path both parties are on does not suggest that it will - I think we are looking at an electorate that has come to the conclusion that they really have no one to represent their interests.


    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    learned yesterday that the GOP is thinking of rearranging their primary schedule to marginalize states like SC that helps nominate the whackos. So I wouldn't discount a moderate winning the election like Mittster who probably would be harder for Obama to beat.

    It seems that everybody, myself included, is depending on the GOP imploding to win not because Obama's been that great or anybody really likes him that much.

    Thankfully, things seem to be changing on the ground despite the do nothingness of Obama. I guess we should thank the great state of WI and Scott Walker for that.

    Parent

    If Obama can say (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:41:46 PM EST
    ...that unemployment is down a percent from when he took office, let's say, he'll be in good shape.

    Then you're right - he'll be in great shape.

    Of course, since unemployment was around 7.5%, that would mean he'd have to be able to say at that time that unemployment was 6.5%- that would be great.

    I don't see it happening.

    Parent

    I would submit (none / 0) (#61)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    regardless of the deal, with republicans coming into power some cuts were inevitable.  The meme was the president (and I'm sure as you know, that of dems in power in general) had already spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on "bailouts."

    Re: raising taxes as part of the discussion, I don't believe it was absent, the leverage was simply not there.  Clinton had leverage because the economy was doing so well, not so w/Obama.

    Parent

    I submit that the negotiation on the cuts (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    should have been joined with the negotiation on the tax rates.

    I think I wrote that in my post. Did anyone read it?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    I did.

    Parent
    I did too. (none / 0) (#80)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    What of the political risk to Obama, and Dems in general had he merely let the rates expire?  Even if only for a few months, surely your crystal ball can not predict what would've happened.

    Parent
    Was there election (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:38:12 AM EST
    looming in December?

    That point is ridiculous.

    Parent

    To a gambling man such as yourself (none / 0) (#172)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    maybe.  I can appreciate the play big or go home thinking.  I also know that whenever I get a review, my boss looks at the totality of my work over the year.  In December I can't count on him/her forgetting what I may have done in January.

    Understanding that his fate is tied to the economy, voters will also evaluate whether what he's done feels right.  If the economy is unchanged, you know the republicans will use the fact that he "went against accepted economic theory."  Even your boy Keynes doesn't think raising taxes during a downturn is a good idea:

    Keynesian economists believe that adding to profits and incomes during boom cycles through tax cuts, and removing income and profits from the economy through cuts in spending and/or increased taxes during downturns, tends to exacerbate the negative effects of the business cycle. This effect is especially pronounced when the government controls a large fraction of the economy, and is therefore one reason fiscal conservatives advocate a much smaller government.
    .....take it w/a grain of salt, it's Wiki

    To be clear, I think we should be raising taxes, but the economic and political climate needs to be right to do it.  

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#173)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:50:02 AM EST
    There will never be a better time politically to resist The Deal.

    Parent
    I did. (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    I think any idea that we would come to resolution on cuts and taxes simultaneously greatly underestimates the complexity of the discussions on the cuts.

    Fundamentally, if tax cuts and spending cuts are addressed at the same time, those wanting to raise taxes will come out way worse.

    The argument is fairly straight forward: it's easier to sell "I will give you more money in your pocket today" than it is "let's preserve a benefit you will need in 20-30 years".

    People are inherently selfish actors when it comes to this stuff and for better or worse, if spending and tax cuts are on the table, everyone is going to reach for tax cuts first.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    but Obama preemptively gave everything up with the deal. It's like BTD said, we could be discussing taxes as budget issue rather than only discussing cuts with the GOP making the decisions on what to cut.

    Parent
    it didn't require much in the way of (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    leverage.  Taxes were going to go up.  All Obama had to do was veto the bill.

    Takes one president and one pen.  And he would have had all the leverage he needed.

    In fact, while Clinton's job was politically easier to sell, it was functionally harder because he had to actually convince people to vote for it.

    Parent

    Veto the bill (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    And let taxes go up on the middle class the month after a holiday and throw a huge monkey wrench into an already shaky recovery?

    Perhaps I should have said this at the start:

    I did not view allowing the tax cuts on the middle class to expire as being a realistic option for Obama for reasons both political and economic.  I think it would have been political suicide for the dems and I think it would have had a horrendous impact on economic confidence which would have ultimately resulted in higher unemployment and a more marked double dip recession.

    Now on this budget business, I think the dems are ready to go to the matt to fight and this is the time to do it.  This is the time to make the stand.  This is why the sacrifice of the Deal was required.

    Parent

    Let me ask you (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    Do you think the middle class (and the economy as a whole) is going to be hurt more by a tax increase or by spending cuts?  Personally, I think spending cuts.

    Now, maybe spending cuts were to some degree inevitable, but not to the level that we will see.  I get your point that there is no real way to quantify it.  But, I don't think you can take that much money out of the federal government and think it will not affect the budget.  Not with all the deficit hysteria around today.

    Indeed, one of the major differences between conservative vs. liberal thinking on the economy is about which is more stimulative - government spending or tax cuts?  Obviously I fall on the side of government spending.  I'm fairly confident that history is on that side as well.

    I also think the political consequences of this are different than what you think.  Ultimately, the election is going to be about how people feel on the economy as a whole, not about one single, solitary veto that occurred 2 years before the next election.

    Finally, I also think that had he veto'd the bill, or even threatened to veto, there's a decent possibility he could've gotten some of the more "moderate" republicans to cave on middle class tax cuts.  But he didn't even try.

    Parent

    Your last (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    sentence is the key "he didn't even try". Sigh.

    Parent
    CST (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    It's a trick question because the relevant fact is whether you are talking short term (1-3 years) or long term.

    In the short term, a tax increase would have been far more damaging to the middle class and the economy.  In the long term, spending cuts will hurt more.

    But our situation is so dire that the public, in large majorities, is telling both parties that the No.1 priority should be fixing the economy.  And I mean yesterday. Your view of the deal hinges to some degree on whether you believe times are so hard right now that we should sacrifice future positions to help people short term.

    If I am a family with one earner who has lost a job and another who is struggling to support the house, an extra $5,000 a year in taxes could be the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

    I think there are a LOT of people right there on that borderline and letting the tax cuts expire would have killed them one way or another.

    They are my priority.

    Parent

    actually I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:43:50 PM EST
    that tax cuts are more beneficial in the short-term.  I think spending is hugely important for the short-term health of the economy.  Far more so than tax cuts.  Think of the New Deal.  It was federal spending that was all about jobs.

    If I am a family with one earner who has lost a job - which one do you need more - $5000 in taxes, or federal spending so you can keep your job?

    30,000 government jobs were lost in February alone.

    We both have the same priorities, believe me, we just disagree on how best to achieve them.

    Parent

    Well, there are a whole host of economists (none / 0) (#110)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    who think that we should spend money on a third stimuus, that the others were too small, including Paul Krugman, James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, Paul Samuelson, Nouriel Roubini (see whole list at Link).  Dean Baker had a nice article the other day on The Spending Cut Fallacy.

    Parent
    Once again the increase in taxes for the (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:30:43 PM EST
    poor have immediate ramifications. Your logic about the importance of the tax policy does not extend to people making less than $20,000. To bad, so sad if they don't have the option to chose survival because Obama's tax policies increased their taxes so that corporations and the very rich could pay even less than under the Bush tax cuts. Other immediate outcomes that will greatly impact people's lives in the short and immediate term.

    Non-defense discretionary is 12 percent of the federal budget. It's also where most federal education programs appear, as well as most programs for the poor apart from Medicaid. In effect, a third of non-defense discretionary spending is handed over to states and locales. Which means cities and states will be taking a huge hit. Detroit is already making plans to put 60 students in each of its high school classrooms. link

    Hey but sacrifices by those who can least afford to make them is no big deal if it helps Obama please the top 2% and helps him get a billion dollars for his reelection campaign.

    While the creating jobs is the number one priority for the people in this country, cuts to domestic programs will result in further job cuts. Now those cuts may well result in corporations make even more record profits and the CEOs may get additional billions in bonuses, but won't do much for the average person. No biggie if Obama gets reelected.  

    Parent

    What tax increase on the poor? (none / 0) (#170)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:21:08 AM EST
    Wasn't the Making Work Pay Credit extended or are you referring to something else?

    Parent
    Making Work Pay Was Eliminated (4.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    The president's proposal, struck in a deal with congressional Republicans, would lower the Social Security taxes on all workers in the nation by 2 percentage points.

    At the same time, the proposal eliminates the "Making Work Pay" tax credit that was originally part of President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus package and reduced Americans' taxes by up to $400 for an individual or $800 for a couple.
    ...
    The break-even point is $20,000 for an individual and $40,000 for a couple. All other things being equal, make less than those figures in a year, and your taxes will go up come Jan. 1, 2011. Make more and they'll go down.

    "It's disappointing," said Michael Linden, the associate director for tax and budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. "These are people working really hard ... We're asking minimum wage workers to pay slightly more in taxes."

    Added Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "It's not a huge increase. But if you're only making $10,000 a year, and your taxes go up a few hundred dollars, that's noticeable. link

    Also the Federal Taxes have gone up on low income retirement pensions. On an annual retirement benefit of $13,000, federal taxes went up $31 a month.


    Parent

    Let me aask you this? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    Why do you think the tax cuts will work? They have been in effect since 2001 and we have lost millions of jobs while they have been in effect. I think that more than proves that tax cuts DO NOT create jobs no matter how many times you supply-siders try to convince yourself and everybody else they do.

    Parent
    Well, I swanee, (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    to stay southron.

    "I did not view allowing the tax cuts on the middle class to expire as being a realistic option for Obama for reasons both political and economic."

    I don't give a tin whistle (or a rat's @) what a realistic option for Obama was.  I care about a decent and humane option for all those people who are now on their uppers.

    Parent

    capstan, this is the question I keep (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:32:40 PM EST
    asking ABG to address, but he never does: when does this stop being about Obama's political fortunes and start being about the people's fortunes, their ability to find work, to pay for health care, to do better for their kids?

    Some days, as I contemplate the fact that people don't seem to know what the meaning of "leadership" is, I feel about 110; the death of leadership is, I believe, the consequence of years and years of people just accepting the least bad of the candidates they have to choose from.

    So, here we are.

    Parent

    How is it political suicide when the next election (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    is 2 years away - plus the taxes would have been cut for the middle class as part of the budget deal?

    Parent
    There was ONE circiumstance (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    in which The Deal was made.

    That is the one I am discussing. Don't know what you are discussing.

    Parent

    One or two percent (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:03:37 PM EST

    A 1% or 2% cut in spending is austere!  Wow, what would a whopping 3% cut be?  Super-austere?  

    Draconian (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by me only on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:34:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Unspeakable (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:07:41 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not what they're cutting (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    It's where they're cutting that is Draconian.

    Parent
    If it was cuts to the military spending (none / 0) (#162)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:43:44 AM EST
    then PPJ would say they were Draconian.

    Parent
    The "Gang of Six" gets involved (none / 0) (#155)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    link

    The Democrats in that gang make me (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:54:23 PM EST
    feel so warm and fuzzy. Mark Warner speaking to his main constituents:

    The nation will be "up the creek" economically, Warner told a crowd of more than 200 lobbyists and business leaders in Richmond, unless Congress and the White House come together in support of highly unpopular measures such as raising taxes and overhauling Social Security and Medicare.

    The other two Democratic gang members are Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a close Obama ally. Both are on record as supporting the recommendations of the Cat Food Commission.

    Maybe they should be given gang colors so that regular folks are made aware that they are bound and determined to steal from the poor to give to the rich. The reverse Robin Hood gang roaming the halls of Congress and joining the lobbyists and business leader to pick your pocket.

    Parent

    you lost this battle when the dems selected Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:45:57 AM EST
    to be the nominee. He was a state senator for crissakes and did nothing. His wife supported him all those years.  And then he was barely a senator before stupid dems were falling all over themselves to speculate that he should run for president so he did nothing in the senate. What did you expect? He knew nothing, he had no convictions except to promote himself, he did nothing. Sarah Palin accomplished more as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla.

    As long as you are going to elect american idol type candidates this is what you get. Ever since Reagan, who was the same type of no mind figurehead, and only briefly interrupted by the Clinton presidency we have elected people we might want to have a beer with. And you are surprised at the fact that the things have gone to the dogs. Don't be you get the government you deserve.

    The Deal And "Shared Sacrifice" | 200 comments (200 topical)