home

A Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:06:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There will be one this afternoon. They say that these are things to look for.

I'll be looking at legal documents myself. I count on you to tell me what's what.

< Bargaining | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Speech | 214 comments (214 topical)
    Repbulican stratergy on rasing the Debt ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    Obama IMO is up against a wall on the debt ceiling time line.   You can't veto it if he does not like what the Rep make it since it's saying the U.S is going to default on it obligations which would cause havoc worldwide.  

    The Rep will offer mini amounts to the existing ceiling just  to make sure the government meets the deadline but these mini will be conditional with only  a two or three week period in order to get negotiations of what they want for the final agreed debt ceiling.  So they will continue to issue mini amounts increase for short periods until they get what they want.  Obama has no choice but to go along with the mini increases since if he veto's them it would initiate the default process and no one wants that.  

    This in my opinion has a horrible side (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    because the Republicans will take us to the woodshed with their crazy social issues.  But the crap the Fed has been doing needs to be curtailed and we must get our focus off of saving the financial industry that just keeps leveraging everything even more and onto jobs.  Having a debt ceiling that isn't free rising could cause that dynamic to have to happen.  But I'm always looking for that silver lining, and then those who really have control of everything simply find some loophole....so all the social programs and women's rights and legislation equalizing the playing the field for minorities will go in the trashcan and somehow the FED will be able to carry on printing like a madman so all the rich people can get even richer.  The only economic correction that will take place will be taking place on my back, and everything that is crazy and dangerous will continue until the next crash that will make the first one look tame.

    Parent
    No veto necessary (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    A bad deal simply won't pass the Senate if the Dems hold firm.

    This way Obama is shielded from having to veto anything.

    Parent

    The senate will not risk it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    because then the Dems in the Senate will be held responsible for the default process. Political suicide.   Remember the ceiling has to be agreed to by the deadline in order to avoid the default process.

    The Senate will agree to the mini increases just so the default process does not get initiated.

    Parent

    If it passes the Dem Senate, then Obama (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    will not veto it.

    All Obama has to do is tell Reid not to bring it up.

    If 41 Dems Senators state they will not vote for it, then it will not pass the Senate....

    Parent

    Maybe I missing something here (none / 0) (#18)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    but the debt ceiling has to be increased or kept at the current level before the deadline. That can only be done by voting on the increase.   If the  Senate does not take any action like you say then the deadline is not met and the default process is automatically initiated and the Dem Senate gets blamed.

    You have no choice but to raise it or default.  

    Parent

    Not quite (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    There's apparently a couple months' wiggle room.  There are various things Treasury can do, I keep hearing over and over again, that can stall off the day of reckoning until around July.

    Parent
    That is just moving the deadline date forword (none / 0) (#192)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    the discussion at hand is what must be done before  that deadline arrives.  There must be a vote to increase the debt ceiling and I am just pointing out how the Rep will handle the increase debt ceiling by issuing mini increases but which will  only be good for two or three weeks. Obama must accept these mini increases  to avoid default.   They will continue to issue these minis before the next deadline (in two weeks) until they get to the final agreed amount and the strings attached to there final agreement.

    Parent
    But if the president (none / 0) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    can bomb Libya without the legal authority to do so why can't he just instruct the treasury to keep making payments? What is congress going to do about it? Impeach him?

    A simpler solution is just make the payments and stop issuing debt. The US is sovereign in its own currency and has no need to borrow to fund federal spending anyway.

    This whole fight over the debt ceiling is irrational and absurd. Therefore I expect it to be the main political issue of the next few news cycles.

    Parent

    leads quickly to hyperinflation (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    especially in an era when "full faith and credit" backs the currency.

    It could be a worldwide catastrophe if the US had, oh, 100 percent or higher inflation.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#17)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    it does not. This is a complete myth. Absent full utilization of resources, including human resources, government spending per se doesn't cause inflation. Instead the economy expands to soak up the extra spending.

    Secondly, the idea that the government borrows in order to offset the inflationary effects of spending is also a myth. All it does when it borrows is swap one financial asset, cash, with another, a bond. The real purpose of issuing government debt is to manage interest rates.

    Parent

    Can you point me to some readings on this? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    What you wrote is the opposite of what I learned, so I'd like to read up on it.

    I've been in Brazil and Argentina during hyperinflation, so it concerns me.

    Parent

    Start (none / 0) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    here.

    Parent
    I'll get back to you on this. (none / 0) (#30)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    thanks.

    Parent
    We already have hyper inflation (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    it is only the hyper deflation in what real estate is worth that has masked what our food and fuel increases have been and any other thing that is a necessity.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#28)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Tell it to my checking account (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:02:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Inflation for sure (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    but not hyper-inflation. I was in Poland when they were redenominating their currency.  Ten Thousand (old) Zloty was redenominated to ONE (new) Zloty.  And there were about 3 Zloty to the american dollar.

    That's hyper-inflation.

    Parent

    I went to Poland once on vacation and (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    went into a nice hotel in Zakopane and asked the cost of a room.  When the desk clerk said 650,000 Zloty I nearly fell over.  Then in a disgusted look she said $65 dollars. It was a steal!

    Parent
    I bet it was (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    I won't forget my first experience of "fast food" in Krakow.  We ordered at the counter and sat down to wait.  It arrived in less than 2 minutes -- made with fresh ingredients and served on beautiful white china.  

    I love LOVE Poland.

    Parent

    Yep, in Brazil, 2000 (none / 0) (#54)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    cruzeiros to 1 real. Argentina, you spent everything every day.

    Parent
    I'm not saying that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    it can't get worse, but it is hyper right now

    Parent
    It's really not (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    hyper-inflation. Although I understand why you feel that way.  We agree that it can get worse.

    Much worse.

    Parent

    Aren't you a day trader :)? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:03:46 PM EST


    Parent
    If I were playing the "bipartisan" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    drinking game, would I be under the table yet?

    not yet (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    talking about those with the most should pay more.....

    Sounding general Democratic themes so far.

    Parent

    Problem: everyone likes spending (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    and hates taxes.....

    Still can't tell where he is going...

    I hate that assertion (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    I don't hate taxes. I'm grateful that I have an income to pay taxes on.  Plus, taxes are the price of a civilized society.

    Parent
    Its also the price (none / 0) (#120)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:33 PM EST

    of a lot of corporate welfare.  The implication that federal taxes are the cause of and limited to making a civilized society is too silly by to take seriously.  No doubt it is quite the comfort to those whose pay check comes from the taxpayer.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    While I agree that corporate welfare has been funded by tax payer dollars, by my standards that is a complete misuse of funds.  And who the heck said federal spending was limited to my particular priorities? You do love your straw men (sudden thought:  I wonder if you name them).

    But federal dollars traditionally fund transportation costs (public and interstate), education (although apparently some think that ignorance should be the fate of those who can't afford private school), research into new technologies (space program) and hundreds of other things that make our society a better place to live.  Or used to.

    Anyone who thinks that the federal government shouldn't invest in the infrastructure of the nation is too silly for words.  Or for further consideration.

    Having a government job is not a sin in my book. Most of it is honest pay for honest work. The sin is in being elected to a position and then selling out the electorate.

    Parent

    I have no idea what AAA just said (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:48:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Aha... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    "put everything on the table."

    Bye, bye FDR. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Die Boomers Die (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:05:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Aren't we the largest voting block? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:08:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps the SS cuts will be offset (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    by passing "right to work" laws for the elderly.
    Because, after all, work makes you fr..

    Parent
    cold.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    cold... us oldies need to get moving, right?

    Parent
    are you guys listening (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    to what he is actually saying?

    Parent
    I just heard him say that savings based on (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    last wk's cuts will total $750 billion. But we already know that NOT extending the tax cuts for the rich would have equaled that amount.

    It's hard to listen to the pretty words when you know the facts of what's already happened.

    Am I the only one who think this sounds exactly like a SOTU speech?

    Parent

    without applause n/t (none / 0) (#176)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:05:29 PM EST


    Parent
    It is hard to take anything he says seriously (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    When he doesn't EVER stand up the Republicans.  He's just putting a very light wordy great orator line in the sand that they will argue all the way down the beach.

    Parent
    No baby boomers (none / 0) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    lose benefits under his plan.

    Period.

    Parent

    What is his plan? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    Do you have the figures in writing some place?

    Parent
    there has never (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    as far as I know, any plan that would effect anyone over 55

    Parent
    I don't believe it for one minute (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    So everyone BUT the baby boomers will sacrifice?  I heard we are all sacrificing.

    Parent
    so they've changed who the Boomers are? (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    it's now just 55 and older?

    Parent
    boomers stop (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    at 1964 according to wiki

    Parent
    right (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    I'm a Boomer, but not over 55. So, either the Boomer age is being re-framed or saying Boomers will not be effected is false. About a decade of Boomers are being thrown under the bus if only over 55 are protected . . .

    Parent
    IIRC one element of the Cat Food Commission (none / 0) (#214)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    once implemented could effect everyone who receives SS, now and in the future. This benefit formula change will be phased in very slowly, beginning in 2017 and not fully phasing in until 2050.

    Index Social Security yearly increases to a lower inflation rate, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient.


    Parent
    what "plan"??? Show me a link. (none / 0) (#81)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:47 PM EST


    Parent
    say that again (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    just for the hell of it

    Parent
    Is the point of reform to take benefits away from (none / 0) (#213)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    baby boomers or to save benefits for future generations? I think it is saving the program for the future. The dimensions of the President's plan are not clear, but I would assume that increasing revenues is part of the plan. Removing, for instance, the income cap for contributions would be one way of capturing increased contributions from the many baby boomers who are now in or are just entering their peak earning/highest disposable income years (the oldest cohort of baby boomers turn 65 this year, but the many, many boomers born in the later, highest birthrate years of the baby boom, will be in the workforce for another 10 to 15 years). Perhaps there will have to be some adjustments to benefit. If so, I would hope those adjustments would apply to all -- that is, current and future beneficiaries. Revenues may have to be increased in other ways (besides removing the cap) too --but I hope that increasing payroll taxes paid by the youngest, poorest workers is not required. In my opinion the payroll tax burden on younger middle and working class earners is already, given their need to make costly personal investments in things like education and training, establishing families and careers, gaining experience, etc., and the increasing cost of doing those things, is way too high.

    Ryan's plan, on the other hand, promises the half of the baby boom, those born between 1946 and 1956, and their elders in the Silent Generation, that they will continue to receive full, lifetime benefits -- while asking younger workers to continue paying payroll taxes to provide those benefits; benefits they will never receive themselves. It is completely cynical pandering to his own party's base.    

    Parent

    Not really, they have already made up (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    their minds....

    Parent
    Really! (none / 0) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    Good grief.

    Parent
    He doesn't know history, then... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    concerning education, clean energy, railroads...

    explain? (none / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:07:22 PM EST


    Parent
    underfunded education, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    horribly dirty manufacturing and home heating, etc., no school after 6th grade...

    He overreached on that one, big time.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, who overreached? (none / 0) (#64)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    Are you reacting to something Obama said?

    Parent
    He hasn't said anything so far that matters (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    because he's pretending to be a different president than the one he is. Now he's complaining about tax breaks for the rich? He gave it all way in December. He has ZERO f'ing credibility.

    he has said a lot (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    that matters to me.  perhaps not you.

    Parent
    But if he wanted this speech to matter (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    It wouldn't be given in the afternoon.  It's theatre, and weak.  He SAYS a lot of things I like from time to time, never acts on those words.  Just a bad track record that offers me little optimism.

    Parent
    Attacks Ryan budget on (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    Medicare and vouchers.....sustained critique of Ryan budget.  Wrong vision.  New tax breaks for wealthy.

    Top 1% income going up over the last ten years; everyone else going down.

    No more tax breaks for wealthy.  Not going to happen while I'm President.  First applause of speech.

    David Stockman said there was "nothing courageous about" Ryan plan.  

    But what is really "on the table?"

    Okay, when is the pivot coming?

    he used 'homeland' (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    and that is one serious concern. Homeland, "Rodina," Fatherland, Motherland... dangerous emotive term.

    he is hitting tax cuts for the rich (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    pretty hard

    Oops (none / 0) (#119)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    too late.

    Parent
    its not too late (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    they come up again before long

    Parent
    Don't hold (none / 0) (#134)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    your breath.

    Parent
    how about this (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    anyone want to bet they dont go through again?

    Parent
    Nothing Obama says (none / 0) (#184)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    today will have any bearing on whether he supports tax cuts for the rich in the future. With Obama everything is always on the table. When the time comes, tax cuts for the rich will be on the table once again.

    Parent
    He's playing the Dems the way (none / 0) (#126)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Republicans like Bush played the conservative base over abortion for so many years.
    "You guys know that I really hate tax cuts. In fact, it wasn't me who signed that bill in December. You can forget you saw that!"

    Parent
    "Slashing benefits" bad (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    cutting benefits good.

    For 3o years of my working life I've paid to guarantee SS for Baby Boomers.

    What's the payback?

    there are not (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    going to be any changes for anyone over 55

    Parent
    Don't need to be 55 to have paid in (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    for 30+ yrs.

    Parent
    I've already paid in for 36 years (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    and I'm not 55 yet.

    Parent
    ditto (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    silly me for working since I was able . . .

    Parent
    wiki (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1946 to 1964, when annual births declined below 4,000,000. They have since returned to higher levels in the "echo boom."


    Parent
    I was born in 1959 (none / 0) (#128)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:36:54 PM EST


    Parent
    so was I (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:39:14 PM EST


    Parent
    The greatest year for jazz recordings!! (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

    Parent
    I've never liked the classic definition for BB (none / 0) (#172)
    by Farmboy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    To me, it's more cultural than chronological. If you weren't old enough to go to Vietnam, you aren't a boomer. If the US flag has always had 50 stars, you aren't a boomer. And claiming that Farrah Fawcett is a generational peer to Bridget Fonda just doesn't seem right. That's why I've always liked the Generation Jones concept:

    Generation Jones is a term coined by Jonathan Pontell to describe the generation of people born between 1954 and 1965 (although some sources include 1966 and 1967).


    Parent
    then we are not (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    talkling about boomers

    Parent
    1945-1964 (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:26 PM EST


    Parent
    The 30 years I mention isn't my entire (none / 0) (#118)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    earning history... it is the time since Reagan's bipartisan fix.

    Parent
    and just think (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    when we turn 65 we will have another 10yrs give or take of 'contributing' yet could still get scr*wed right now since we are under 55.

    Parent
    I'm 45 and I was born the year after (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:58 PM EST
    the baby boom technically ended.

    Parent
    Isn't that clever (none / 0) (#190)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    how they never define the difference between "slashing" and "cutting"?  

    Ugh.  Hypocrites.

    Parent

    Reduce spending in tax code (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    No more tax cuts for wealthy.

    Defense of why he extended Bush cuts--"I will not do it again."

    Tax breaks for millioniares....Limiting itemized deductions for millioniares including interest deductions....

    Wow...That is good, progressive.

    "I will not do it again" (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    is a good defense?

    Parent
    You guys, I didn't say it was a viable defense (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    But what he was saying...

    Parent
    He made a defense of (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    extending tax cuts and then said he would not do it again.  He did not say his defense of extending tax cuts was that he would not go it again.

    My truncated syntax was confusing above....

    Parent

    That's how I read it (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:39 PM EST
    thanks for highlight throughout. appreciated it as i was watching local news for the weather :)

    Parent
    Uh-uh (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    I don't think that's good OR progressive.  It is mostly the middle class that benefits from the interest deductions.  That's our one big tax break on our one big investment -- our home.

    Now if they taxed interest income that would be a different story.  

    I have a decent income right now and I make about $1.50 (a dollar fifty) a year on interest income.  I say tax away.

    Parent

    For upper income people (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    "millionaires" was what he said.....

    I assume the deduction for mortgage interest and other itemized deductions would remain for those under 250k.  This plays off of Ryan's attempt to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely--what a moron.

    No worries, the mortgage interest deduction has a million fans here in California--no one will touch it.

    In general, the limiting of itemized deductions for high income earners (and such a limitation already exists) would represent a significant tax increase on the wealthy....

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    Although I'm a little confused by the conflating of millionaires with those earning over $250K.  

    And the deduction has a million fans in probably every state.  I'm definitely one of them myself.  But were I you, I would still watch carefully and take nothing at face value.

    In fact, that's what I will be doing.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    But this speech does not hurt....and sounded Democratic themes on taxes and fairness.....Good speech.....

    But sure, just a speech....
     

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#182)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    "reining in the growth" of social programs is different from cutting benefits.  If Pres. Obama can prevent cuts to benefits in Medicare, Medicaid (which he has extended, so he already gets points for that), and SS, then I'll be relatively happy.  His embrace of austerity at this time sucks, but it's also nothing new.

    Parent
    Remember even Big Dog Bill had (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    to say the "Era of Big Government is Over" before he defended Social Security and Medicare to the death.....

    Parent
    It's hard to pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:20 PM EST
    as I'm at work and I can't blast the speech from my speakers...but I haven't heard him support raising the SS age or cutting benefits.  So that's good.

    No specifics, just numbers (none / 0) (#90)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    from defense...

    Parent
    neither have i (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:54 PM EST


    Parent
    everything is on the table. (none / 0) (#101)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:27:39 PM EST


    Parent
    once more (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    there is no plan to cut benefits or raise the age for anyone over 55.  
    personally I dont think raising the age a little over an extended period is not an unreasonable thing.

    Parent
    I do (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    personally I dont think raising the age a little over an extended period is not an unreasonable thing

    I think it's a terrible thing.  Not for me, I'm a desk jocky.  But my Dad worked construction.  My grandmother waitressed.  It makes my legs hurt to think of them having to work longer than they did.

    Parent

    You work a desk job (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    The lowest-income workers in this country, those with the least retirement savings and who will get the smallest SS benefits, work with their bodies and those bodies are mostly burned out well before the current 65.


    Parent
    That's why I shut down my contracting business (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    at age 49. Injuries to my back and knees made it impossible to continue.

    There really are two Americas.

    Parent

    there's no plan, period. (none / 0) (#121)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    There's a starting point.

    Parent
    did he not just embrace (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    the debt commission plan?  

    Parent
    I hope not (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    Simpson-Bowles was/is not a good plan.

    Parent
    Howdy's right on that, though (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Obama is letting the commision take the lead. Bad news, all the way around. Unless, of course, you believe in Obama's new slogan for 2012:

    "Bipartisanship = Patriotism."

    Parent

    Not even a plan, really... (none / 0) (#166)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    Since the commission couldn't reach consensus on a plan and died a death without publishing any agreed-upon conclusion.

    Parent
    that could be a good thing (none / 0) (#177)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    I could allow him to take some parts and not others.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    Nothing like that.

    Pretty generalized stuff except for Defense cuts and taxing the wealthy....which is still pretty vague.

    The "Commission" dodge here on Medicare.  An oldy but a goody for DC politicians.....This has Daley written all over it.

    Parent

    The only way? (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    That was really the ONLY way to keep taxes lower for the middle class?  To give away the house before you even start to negotiate?

    Quack.

    Calling on congress for tax reform, blah blah blah.

    Two housewives of Wall Street CEOs get $220 million in free money, and he can't even mention it.

    He sounds disconnected.  Words without feeling.  

    Even going after the wealthy, he's so harmless and meek, it just will not work.  No one is watching this speech, they're either at work, scrounging for sandwich meat, or sedated.  Now he's saying most of the wealthy WANT to pay more taxes, want to give something back, blah blah blah.  No, they don't.  Not the tiny fraction of the population so wealthy they are controlling just about everything.  They are out to rob as much as they can.

    Now he's got a few strawmen.  Gotta change SS, he buys into the Repub stuff here.  The only thing you have to change is tax the wealthy appropriately.  He just said the word "progressive," holy sh*t.

    Nothing bad for progressives in this speech (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    The "Commission" idea is a dodge that will go nowhere.....

    Parent
    You mean (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    like the Catfood Commission will go nowhere?

    Parent
    Not a single example of bi-partisanship he cites.. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    ...have ever done a positive thing, they were all bullsh*t bandaids and crumbs.  Were they not, for example, working people would have gotten a raise in the last half century.

    He still thinks people with a proven track record of doing the wrong thing really want to do the right thing. He just knows it.

    Fool.

    And he already signals he's ready to back down.  Did we know that no one gets everything they want?

    Especially when you fight for nothing when it really gets down to it.  Whatever works for you, Obama, whatever works for you.

    find common ground... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    Crikey...quit facilitating. LEad, follow, or get out of the way!

    TAKE A FRIKKIN STAND! Even if it's wrong, DO SOMETHING.

    He's already negotiating it away! (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    "We won't get everything we want... We have to bridge our differences and find common ground."

    Bipartisanship = Patriotism!!!

    That's a "vision"??? Either he believes in what he said for the first 20 minutes of the speeech, or he doesn't.

    Could have predicted exactly how this would end.

     

    And we can't just think about ourselves (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:48 PM EST
    That's rich coming from a guy who's idea of leadership is whatever is best for his electoral chances.

    Unbelievable.

    Who DOESN'T think everyone getting along wouldn't be grand, you dope?

    We've heard this act before.  And before and before and before.

    Click.

    Windy nonspecificity (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    and the Ryan plan sux

    But its important to work with my (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    good friends across the aisle to come up with a bipartisan solution.
    I'm not watching the speech, but the content sounds like an acid trip, compared to the reality of his Presidency.


    Parent
    Sure, the surrender could come (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    down the road--but it did not happen in this speech.  

    I'm glad for that...

    Parent

    Yup--but I'll take it (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    But attempts to cut Defense and raise taxes on the wealthy.

    He didn't give away anything to the Republicans in this speech.

    Parent

    You think Obama is going to raise (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    taxes going into election year? Come on, man---use some critical thinking skills!
    Obama wants credit from the Dems for saying taxes on the wealthy should be raised, but god forbid actually signing a tax increase.

    Parent
    timing is off (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    doesn't have to happen until after the election.

    Also, he doesn't actually have to sign anything for taxes to increase.  He just has to not sign a tax cut.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    but this is where he had a great failure. The problem was that he didn't decouple the tax cuts for the rich with the ones for the middle class. Now with the GOP in control of congress, he will either have to sign onto it all again or he will have to let it all expire. I'm not sure he's willing to let them expire before an election.

    Parent
    letting them all expire (none / 0) (#201)
    by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    wouldn't happen until after the election.

    The "deal" happened in december, after the election.  Whatever happens in 2012 would be after the election too unless they decide to push it up, which frankly, why would they do that.

    Parent

    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#206)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    be surprised to see the GOP bring up a bill to extend them before the election.

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#211)
    by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    but they can let that bill die and they still won't have raised taxes yet.

    Besides, they don't control the senate just yet.  Couldn't Reid etc... just let it die?

    Parent

    Like that's going to happen, Lucy. (none / 0) (#160)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:54:30 PM EST


    Parent
    we'll see (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    but in any event it doesn't require "raising taxes in an election year" or "signing a bill"

    So no excuses.

    Parent

    "We'll see" is not acceptable (none / 0) (#168)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    any deal must have all parts enacted together.
    If there is no tax increase as part of the bill, that means there is no plan for a tax increase (or letting tax cuts expire).
    One doesn't trust ANY politician on these matters, but especially not Obama, with his record.

    Parent
    what are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:03:49 PM EST
    I'm saying with no bill at all, the taxes are going to go up, because they were passed as a "temporary extension".  The extension will not be up until after the 2012 election, hence him not having to raise taxes in an election year.

    It doesn't require him to sign any thing because if no bill is passed, taxes will automatically go up.

    Those are the parameters for the tax increases.  "We'll see" meant "we'll see" what Obama ends up doing.  I don't pretend to have a chrystal ball.  My hunch is this time he will let them expire since he seems to be putting it on the line.  I'm willing to bet you disagree with that.  But that has nothing to do with how it would or would not happen.

    Parent

    I left you post above (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    Clarifying in my opinion the only way we can "get" true defense cuts and why I don't have any faith in him saying it right now.  He had enough time to come up with something tangible and he did not.

    Parent
    Does he ever (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by star on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    come up with anything tangible? That is why it is difficult to get excited by another "speech". we have been taken in too many times.

    as 'speech' goes this one was way dud compared to some of his earlier rhetorical flourishes ...he looked bored and did not really seem to believe in what he was saying.. there was a 'whatever' ,'get it over with' kind of tone.

    Parent

    No, it was not about getting excited (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    Not for me at least.  

    I was hoping to avoid a demolition of the New Deal.  That did not happen.  So, I think it was a good speech for that reason alone.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    Then, this was a speech to molify the base....

    The details of the real budget to be worked out later.....

    Parent

    I just remembered something (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    I was reading the other night about how many of the budget cuts previously agreed to have ended up being reconciled by a bunch of previously government funded programs that were never used being reabsorped.  I'll bet the military has itself of lot of some of that.  Now they won't be happy about coughing any of it up because I think they have a special loophole where they can use funds designated for one thing to be used for something else. But I bet the Pentagon is sitting on a huge pile of such funds that they were supposed to use for things in the past that they did not.  There is most likely a huge one time windfall there.

    Parent
    Some of the $39 billion (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    in cuts from the deal last Friday came from $1-2 billion allocated for the census--in 2010???

    Census over.  So, that was not really a cut....Some sleight of hand.   But then Obama selling it as the biggest cut in the budget ever.  

    My hope for Obama has always been that he could sound bipartisan--because Indies like that--but govern progressively.  He's got the first part down but is a little weak on the governing part.

    Parent

    From a bookkeeping perspective (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    it is very good to clear out these "abandoned" accounts, and get our debt down in any way in the process.  They aren't doing the U.S. taxpayer any good just sitting on the books with their funds in them and providing no service.

    Parent
    About as good a speech one would expect (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    coming from a centrist democrat president considering the current state of things.

    IMO (none / 0) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    it was a much better speech than one would expect coming from a centrist president.

    Parent
    I am greatly relieved (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    He spent a lot of time sounding general Democratic principles.....

    Aside from that a lot of vagueness about deficit reduction--which I'll take, as specifics in cuts to Medicare would have been no good, really bad, a terrible tune.

    Parent

    Makes me think they're looking at (none / 0) (#207)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    some internal numbers and decided he needed to rally the base; I read the speech (I could "hear" it in my head), and while he said a lot I can agree with - don't faint - I don't trust it, not even a little.  I'm starting to feel like this is the "I love you" before we get, um, screwed.

    He is - as most of those whipping deficit/debt hysteria are - wrong about that whole issue; he's a smart guy, and should understand that the only constraints we have on spending are self-imposed.  He's wrong about the wisdom of cutting spending at such a fragile economic time: austerity may work on a micro/household budget basis, but it just does not work on a macro basis.  And we're going to find out why that's so, I'm afraid.

    For those who weren't alarmed by the speech, I do think it's important to consider the implication of his embrace of the Deficit Commission; as much as he says he intends to protect - but strengthen - Social Security, for example, I believe the Commission report discussed income-indexing, which, if implemented, could seriously and negatively affect people's ability to live out their days in anything approaching comfort.

    I think there's a lot - a lot - of wiggle room in that speech; I know that it sounds so reasonable to call for "coming together" and getting everyone's "good ideas," but we've seen this movie before and it didn't end happily ever after.

    It was a speech; we'll see how well the actions live up to it.


    Parent

    Good to hear. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    I wasn't able to watch or listen.

    Sounds like it was OK. I like the part about 'won't do it again' - re:  extending bush tax cuts. That's for sure.

    Parent

    This also sounds pretty good... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    "I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society," Obama said in his speech. "I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs."



    Parent
    Speach in Three Wrods (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    Bull$hit, Bull$hit, Bull$hit

    Reform the tax code for itemizing, he actually said middle class Americans don't itemize.

    Reform Corporate tax code, but nothing more.  What does that even mean ?  If it like his past deals, it probably means a lower rate.

    He won't sign off on cutting the protection for the elderly, but Medicare & Social Security need to be looked at.

    The only solid bit of information is cutting some military and increasing the taxes on the wealthy, or rather he won't extend their tax cuts.  Yeah, never heard that one.

    Not a bad speech if his goal was to make big and bold claims without much substance.  No mention of Afghanistan/Iraq is a 'serious budget speech'.

    IMO this speech was anything but serious.  He tossed the left a bone, or rather talked about tossing the bone.  A bunch of political talk that committed him to cutting $400 Billion from the military and not letting tax cuts expire for the rich.  Everything else is up for grabs.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    a speech.  All he's doing is talking.  That's why it is called a speech.

    Parent
    Ah, so hes not calling for a tax (none / 0) (#158)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    increase on the wealthy now?
    The plan must be cut entitlements and promise not to extend the Bush tax cuts again. Bwahaha.

    Parent
    What a wonderful speech. (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    It reminded me of FDR. I can't wait to support whatever comes out of the negotiations.

    Like the  character in "Darkness at Noon," I now understand that I have not embraced the Party or The Leader, and my intellectual ramblings have been politically incorrect and counterrevolutionary.

    I'm so sorry Mr. President, I do plead guilty.

    You and Jed Lewison @ DK are in (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:20:29 PM EST
    complete sync on this!

    Parent
    I wish I could navigate there... (none / 0) (#208)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    since the change, I can't search, can't find anything!

    Parent
    Krugman on the Speech (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:39:36 PM EST
    "Style: I liked the way Obama made a case for government at the beginning. I liked the way he accused Republicans of pessimism, of abandoning a hopeful vision of America. Good that he went after the Ryan plan -- and good that he went after the cruelty of that plan. If you ask me, too many percentages. Oh, and whichever speechwriter came up with "win the future" should be sent to count yurts in Outer Mongolia.

    Substance: Much better than many of us feared. Hardly any Bowles-Simpson -- yay!

    . . .

    Overall, way better than the rumors and trial balloons. I can live with this. And whatever the pundits may say, it was much, much more serious than the Ryan "plan"."

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/the-budget-speech/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

    OH MY GOSH KRUGMAN IS A REPUBLICAN OBAMABOT FAT CAT THAT HATES THE RICH AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS!!!

    only four American flags as the backdrop. (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    That's a move in the right direction. Seems like one would be sufficient, but the Bush years led to a 'more is better' type of flag approach.

    I saw on CNN yesterday (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    a Republican candidate for Texas Governor advocating secession and specifically stating that he hated the U.S. flag .....and that it should come down from government buildings in Texas so that only the Texas flag would fly.....

    Parent
    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    I'm glad that all of this is finally coming to the forefront and that the rest of country is finally seeing what we in the south have been seeing for quite a while.

    Texas has been yelling about secession for quite a while now. Maybe the Mexican Army will come and reclaim the state for Mexico.

    Parent

    Oh my dog... (none / 0) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    That is just sick.

    Parent
    Yup--but it was not a major (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    candidate....but another Republican candidate for governor talked about secession.

    You know, the War of Northern Agression should not be forgotten.

    Parent

    You want a laugh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    A friend of mine who I used to work with moved from Texas to GA and they called her child a Yankee at school.

    Having lived in the south most of my life I'm past trying to understand why people here care so much about that war. I guess they're constantly trying to rewrite it to make the south the winner instead of the loser.

    Parent

    Even Joan Baez romanticized (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    the loss by the South---"The day they drove Old Dixie Down."

    Parent
    Robbie Robertson wrote it (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    for The Band. I don't hear it as a romanticized version of the South. I've always heard it as a southerner's lament, but not a universal one at all.

    Parent
    Far from universal... (none / 0) (#148)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    my ancestors were still in europe then. If they do a song "The Night They Drove The Kaiser Down," well, that's different  ;-)

    Parent
    "They took only the best" (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    "...until a yankee laid him in his grave...."

    There is tendency to romanticize lost causes....

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    I forgot it was a daytime speech.  

    I think he will probably come out more strongly on defending Medicare, Medicaid, and SS than has been explicitly indicated.  I don't know what the Simpson-Bowles head-fake was about yesterday.

    disappointed you think you need filled in (none / 0) (#12)
    by Buckeye on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    you know how this will go

    Live Feed Here (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    and here (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    whitehouse.gov

    Parent
    Quotes Augustine: (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    "There but for the Grace of God go I."

    Good general defense of government spending....

    Okay, now some specifics....

    Tax cuts Suck (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    Good Obama.  Without all these crazy tax cuts we would have negligible debt.

    Deficit reduced (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:58:24 PM EST
    by agreement three times during 90s.  All three agreements asked for shared responbility.

    He is talking about tax increases of Bush I and Clinton.....that is how we balanced the budget.

    This sounds good so far....

    Citicizing tax cuts aS increasing the deficit.

    Cross your fingers, this is good so far.

    Talking about Baby Boomer strain on deficit.  Uh-oh.

    I know, I'm getting excited (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    This is when he always walks right on my face though, either how he ends this speech or right after the Republicans attack him about this speech.

    Parent
    Look, this is obvious theater. (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    Saying "tax increases" now that the GOP controls the House is a sop to the idiots who think Obama stands to the left of Newt Gingrich. He already said he wanted higher tax rates, but only AFTER he agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts.
    There's only one way to read what he's saying, if it's being reported accurately, and that is: buy cat food futures.


    Parent
    Even after the economy recovers (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    we will still have big deficits......

     

    Anyone else not like the light tone (none / 0) (#35)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    he's taking? He must have gone to AU so he could lecture to undergraduates.

    But that's just griping, not criticism.

    Here he comes baby boomers (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    He's coming after you right now

    Parent
    Ryan budget would lead (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    to a fundamentally different America--in my lifetime or perhaps in history of America.

    This is good....but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

    like I said (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    "so far"

    Parent
    he hasnt said anything so far (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    that I disagree with.

    The Debt commission (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    He has openly embraced the Debt commission but we really don't know exactly what that means.

    Savings from Defense Budget (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    Here come the specifics....

    Not really :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    Nothing specific

    Parent
    Where defense spending always has you? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    The next Libya will cause you to unload billions before you (as a tax payer and a voter) even get to know about it.  To cut defense on a budget level you have to go in on the contractor level and dump contracts.  If he was serious about this I would think he would have had time to get a rundown of defense contracts that were going.

    Parent
    Precisely. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    cutting defense means going after, say, the Boeing Tanker contract...if B-52s will last till 2050, why not those 707 (KC135's)? What about all of the KBR/Halliburton crap?

    We used to have cooks and bakers, and we used to have military logistics, among other things. These have been 'outsourced.'

    Ohhh... I hope I don't wind up kicking in the television out of sheer frustration from this fluff.

    Parent

    $400 billion in cuts from Defense (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    Will work with Gates on those.

    and when that doesn't happen, (none / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    does that mean $400 billion cut from entitlements?
    Is the GOP willing to cut that amount from defense? Are Dems?
    You know, Obama can't be a "mediator" who doesn't take any active role (supposedly), and then be a leader the next day. The cognitive dissonance is jarring, and makes me think he's not serious.


    Parent
    So far, so good. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Tony on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    End the speech now!

    Now Healthcare (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    reducing cost of healthcare.  My appproach will build on HCR reforms.

    Change the way we pay for healtcare...Indepedent commission of doctors to find savings....

    Save $500 billion by 2023.

    No vouchers with shrinking benefits.

    So... let's take control out of (none / 0) (#68)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    the government, and give it to some undefined independent commission... I can hear "death panel" already.

    The cat food commission will have authority to (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    oversee further cuts to medicare.

    Groovy.

    He is now saying nice things (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    But is so dispassionate.  He seems medicated.  Everything gets lost when you aren't really selling ANYthing.

    At this point, I would like to (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    be medicated...

    Full disclosure - I'm not watching or listening; I hate the disconnect I get when I hear him revise history or point fingers at others for things he's been doing himself.

    Honestly, listening to an Obama speech is like listening to the weather report...there's some percentage chance that anything you hear will actually come to pass, but that's about it.

    I'll read it and see what I think.

    Parent

    Somehow reading the speeches (none / 0) (#187)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    make them so passive IMHO.  At least watching him adds some color to the speech.  Well anyway, we did get cool.

    Parent
    A commission--is that it? (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    I'll take that, I think....

    Fail-safe? (none / 0) (#82)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    Utter sellout.

    fail safe is meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    political PR.

    The gist of this speech is no tax cuts for wealthy and increasing taxes on wealthy and limiting itemized deductions for wealthy.....

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:25:32 PM EST


    Parent
    No hit to Medicare (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    Just a dodge to a commission of doctors.....

    Good dogded a bullet....

    Verdict (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    Well he's set a standard to judge him by.  The speech itself gave me what I wanted in terms of tax policy, cuts to defense and tone.  He had to put entitlements on the table but he protected the seniors and baby boomers, which I think is the most important part.

    It's a speech by a democrat trying to get things done.

    That's what I voted for.

    Now he has to implement his statements.  Let's be clear, he's not going to get everything that he listed. But I expect him to get a lot of it. Maybe 70%.

    Why should only current seniors and (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    boomers be protected?? People under 55 don't count??

    Parent
    because as the baby boomers (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    begin dying in huge numbers, the echo boomers will stabilize the system for the Gen X'ers

    Parent
    Debt fail-safe (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    If we haven't hit targets by 2014, we'll make more spending cuts and reductions in the tax code.

    Vision, vision. Everyone makes sacrifices, no none bears all the burden.

    December 2010 made all this a joke.

    Seriously, this is Through the Looking Glass stuff.

    And says the millionaires will agree that they should take a tax hit! Funny stuff, there.

    First reports seem quite positive (none / 0) (#144)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    No chance to listen or read, myself.

    very positive (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    surprisingly so

    Parent
    You should (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    but some of the impact (for me anyway) came from the suspense and anxiety of waiting for him to say "but."

    I'm not a fan of Obama speeches, but I thought this one was the best I've heard him give as president by a long shot.  First time he's given a full-throated defense of the bedrock principles of liberal government (not that he used the term "liberal," of course).

    We've learned that what he says means nothing, unfortunately, about what he will ultimately do.  But I was expecting something a good deal vaguer and more wishy-washy, so I'm slightly less terrified than I was as of this morning.


    Parent

    Excellent, thanks (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    I read that he drew a line in the sand on extending the tax cuts again. Of course, I don't quite believe him, but that's surely something we can try to hold him to. It could be a huge win.

    Parent
    Good summary of speech (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:24:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#210)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:31:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Whose reports? (none / 0) (#193)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Anybody on the liberal/lefty side of the scale? or just the usual suspects lapping it up?

    Parent
    Soneone please tell Eric Cantor (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    That President Obama hasn't been in office long enough or had enough political experience to be "vintage" anything other than maybe being Vintage Ameircan or Vintage person of color.  What an idiot, get a new speech writer Cantor.

    I may not be happy with Obama, and I am starting to think that experience does count for something...and in that light I will not stand for Republicans defining him as VINTAGE!  I will not stand for it :)

    You and Mitt at least agree the Pres. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    is Amurican.  That's something.

    Parent
    Note to the Pirate Crew: (none / 0) (#185)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    I volunteer to be the Pirate Crew Expeditionary Force Advance Party. Starting this summer, after August. Ex Mrs. Jeffinalabama has offered to advise and direct in Colombia, and I'll be contacting friends all over the Spanish Main and Caribbean.

    Segue? (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:21:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it's time to move on... (none / 0) (#204)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    and this speech just makes it that much easier to decide.

    Parent
    Winning the future via piracy. It's a plan. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:29:25 PM EST


    Parent
    A Speech | 214 comments (214 topical)