home

The Politics Of Deficit Reduction

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:41:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Judis:

[2012] is most likely [to be] a situation similar to that faced by George H.W. Bush in 1992: a sluggish economy that is improving, but at a sufficiently slow rate to leave a gap between fact and perception that rival politicians will attempt to fill.

So far, Obama has not done very well in filling that gap. He has allowed Republicans to make a case that things are getting worse, and he has cooperated with them in taking measures that will actually make things worse. He has allowed Republicans to set the terms of the debate. It has been about the perils of deficits and debt. That is not just bad economics; it also leads Democrats into a political cul-de-sac.

[More...]

[. . . .] What should Obama have done and be doing? He should focus relentlessly on creating jobs and speeding economic growth. He should have presented programs to do so, and if the Republicans blocked them, then they would have to take the blame if the economy stalls or actually turns down again. And above all, the president should not acquiesce in, and even praise, measures that will harm the economy and his own re-election chances.

Because the GOP electorate seems certain to impose insanity on its Presidential candidates, Obama has a good chance of reelection. But the first two years of his Presidency have had the wrong focus, both as a matter of politics and policy.

Speaking for me only

< How To Negotiate A Clean Increase In the Debt Ceiling | Lindsay Lohan Preliminary Hearing Underway >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Politics Of Deficit Reduction | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Political Epitaph for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    This statement could apply to just about everything done during the Obama presidency.

     "He has allowed Republicans to set the terms of the debate".

    That is so disappointing (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    I really did look forward to a new generation and new conversation. I hope I see one in my lifetime.

    Parent
    "But the first two years of his Presidency... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    ...have had the wrong focus, both as a matter of politics and policy."  As will the following six, barring a personality transplant.  I would love to be wrong, love to see Obama suddenly dawn his second-term SuperLiberal cape, but I'd also like to be a rock star.  Both are possible, I suppose, but neither seems any more likely than a Pick-Six win.

    But Obama (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    won't do that because he shares their ideological beliefs when it comes the economics. If he gets a second term, expect the legislation to be even more conservative relegating the party to extinction.

    What a caveat! (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    Let me translate this into the way that the post reads from my perspective"

    "He will likely be a two term president because he will seem more reasonable than the conservatives and he will oversee and eventually receive credit for the inevitable recovery of the economy as viewed at the end of his term, and he will have overseen the largest period of job growth in our nation's history and opened the discussions or moved the ball materially on universal healthcare, gay marriage, gays in the military, balancing the budget and raising taxes on the rich, while appointing 3-4 supreme court justices, ending two wars and overseeing the transformation of the Middle East . . .

    but other than that, his first 2 years are a complete failure both politically and on the policy.

    Give me that failed focus and more of it.

    This is the view from 5 feet, not the thousand foot level on which presidents must be evaluated. The internet and the speed of the news cycle has warped how we view our politicians and created an environment in which decision effecting little on a big picture perspective are given massive meaning.

    Most people who view Obama's presidency as a failure are either conservative or too keenly focused on the minutia.

    The Deal will be a speed bump in the history books. The lack of a public option in the initial version of HCR unworthy of a footnote. The fact that there are a few thousand as opposed to 0 troops in Iraq at the end of the year won't even be of note, he'll still get credit for ending the war.

    From a thousand feet, Obama's presidency has been a success.

    It would be nice if you provided (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    links on the actual net jobs that were lost or created during FY 2009 and 2010 to substantiate your claim.

    I will even give you a head start.

    Employment declined by 4.7 million in 2009, the largest calendar-year job loss in the history of the series (since 1939); although payrolls declined sharply at the beginning of the year, job losses moderated thereafter. link

    That is a net number for 2009. IOW number of jobs lost minus number of jobs created.

    Parent

    I accept your challenge (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    Couple of things:

    1. Obama became President in 2009.  Are we blaming him for job losses that occurred that he could not have stopped.  Most economists assume a 6-12 month lead time before anything a president does really has an impact. His stimulus package passed in January and started being rolled out in earnest in the last quarter of 2009.

    But let's ignore reality for a moment because I think my point is valid even if you tag Obama for all 2009 job loses.

    The job loss/creation number will look like this

    1. - 4.7 million
    2. + 1.1 million
    3. +2.5 million
    4. +2.5 million
    5. +2.5 million
    6. +2.5 million
    7. +2.5 million
    8. +2.5 million

    11.4 million jobs created on his watch. The economy hits its natural resting place at the time he walks out of office.

    Would I like this to happen instantly? Of course.  But it was a heck of a mess to get us where we are and it's going to take time to fix.  There is no instant solution.  It will be a slow recovery but one that will be constant.

    Parent

    Forecasts are not facts. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    Approximately 1.6 million new jobs must be created each year just to meet the needs of new entries to the labor force. So while 4.7 million jobs were lost in 2009, 2010 fell .5 million short of what was needed just to provide employment to new people entering the market. Every other number that you present are forecasts and not actual numbers. If you want me to take those numbers seriously, please provide me with the 2006 CBO report that shows a forecast of 8.84 million job lost from Jan. 2008 - Feb. 2010.

    As of Mar. 2011, the U.S. is 20.2 million short of what it needs for full employment.

    Hindery points out that the US economy is 20.2 million jobs short of what it needs for full employment.

    In his figures, Hindery accounts for "discouraged workers" who just stop trying to get new jobs and those who are "under-employed", i.e., partially but not completely employed. link

    49% of the new jobs are low wage jobs (paying $9.03 -$12.91 per hour)). 40% of the jobs lost were in the high wage category ($19.05 -$31.40 per hour). link

    Parent

    I understand that forecasts are not facts (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:28:39 PM EST
    But we're talking about predictions for the future here.  My predictions are supported by studies of the issue from nonpartisan bodies.

    The CBO's job is not to predict unexpected disasters.  f your argument is that some unexpected event could occur that will throw off all of the CBO numbers, OK. You win. That can happen.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have to use some standard of figuring out whether policies will work in the future and the CBO reports are among the best researched there are.

    It's obvious at this point that the goal of your comments isn't a fair discussion but an attempt to undercut and deny credit for anything or any stat that may make Obama look half way decent.  You asked for support. I provided support and now the discussion shifts to another point that you feel you can win.

    And the circle of life continues.  But I am hopping off. I've proven my point, whether you acknowledge it or not.

    Parent

    IMO a fair discussion does not include (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    pie in the sky predictions on what will happen in the future on jobs. You have not proven anything but only put forth a forecast of what could happen in the next 5 years.

    The downturn in the economy was not completely unexpected. In fact, many of the warnings that were sounded were ignored. Many of the same people who warned of what could happen are also forecasting that Obama's plans to cut spending and cut or eliminate domestic programs will cause the U.S. to lose more jobs rather than create them.

    Parent

    You've missed the part where the (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    CBO says that its projections are based on assumptions that current laws governing taxes and spending will remain the same.

    Which we all know they are not.

    Try again.

    Parent

    astute (none / 0) (#81)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:35:53 AM EST
    thanks...your arguments are so clear headed.

    Parent
    Some more data on Obama's great (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:22:45 AM EST
    job creation. ;-(

    These three Chicago women share more than just scraping by with low-paying jobs: They all have master's degrees and are unable to find work in their specialty areas.

    There's even a name for their situation. They are referred to as mal-employed, a term coined in the '70s for college graduates who could not find jobs that require a degree. Instead, they settle for low-skilled jobs.
    ...
    Nationwide, about 1.94 million graduates under age 30 were mal-employed between September and January, according data compiled by Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. link



    Parent
    Seems investors don't agree with (none / 0) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    Obama that all these budget cuts will result in economic growth.

    Treasuries Advance Before Fed Meets on Bets Growth Will Suffer

    Treasuries rose for a second week as investors speculated that efforts to cut the Federal budget deficit may damp economic growth and awaited a policy statement next week from the Federal Reserve.



    Parent
    You're counting jobs (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    in the future and your claim that more jobs will be gained during Obama's time than in any other time is ridiculous even if the numbers you cite pan out.

    Obama has shown no tendencies and demonstrated no desire to achieve full employment.  Indeed the jobs gained this past year (still woefully weak during a 'recocovery') are not as good as the millions of jobs lost.  His forays in the pursuit of new trade agreements will only make matters worse.  His legacy may well be that he's sealed our fate, insured that our decline as a nation will continue.

    You got nuthin'.

    Parent

    I've got the current pace (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:25:51 AM EST
    Which is all that is required to hit the targets referenced.

    Parent
    ABG - (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:20:55 AM EST
    if it makes you feel any better, being the somewhat lonely voice that you are at the moment, in 2012 (unless Obama makes the unprecedented move of slashing SS benefits) I will probably be as strong a booster as you are of Obama.

    It's motivating people that is the question - do you wait for the GOP crazy, or do you do something else?  How Obama stands up to the crazy in the next year matters to me.

    Parent

    Execution ABG (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    execution.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    you should print this comment out and frame it.

    Parent
    Are you just (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    counting the jobs that were created and not the jobs that were lost?

    Parent
    Ga6thDem (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    All of the numbers I provided are net numbers.  In other words, the country added a net of 1.1 million jobs last year. It lost a net of 4 million the year before.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    link is projecting 8.2% unemployment when the presidential election rolls around not the 7% you have been previously stating.

    Parent
    7's (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    Is what Obama has to have unemployment at to be fairly safe IMHO.  If he's at 8.2 he'll likely still be re-elected but it won't be as easy.

    Any more challenges?  As I have said, I don't post anything that helps Obama here without blue booking [HT:BTD], indexing and cross referencing because the goal is to find any weakness in any fact or number and use that to discredit anything.

    Bring it on. Anything else or can you concede that the point is at least supportable?

    Parent

    Before (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    you said that you were projecting 7% unemployment.

    It's actually unlikely that Obama is going to win with 8.2% unemployment. You are not looking at this realistically. George Bush created a disaster did he not and the GOP came back 2 years later.

    And the choices that Obama is making are making it more likely that even 8.2% is going to be a low number.

    Obama has not shown enough improvement to get reelected with those numbers and I think even he knows it. He's banking on the GOP nominating a nut case which while not out of the realm of possibility it's also not something that I would be banking my reelection on.

    Parent

    Obviously (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    you "are either conservative or too keenly focused on the minutia."


    Parent
    Presidents are evaluated based on (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    how well they have managed things from the level where real people live; I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not really all that concerned with how the history books will assess Obama as much as I am with how the policies he is advocating and the actions he is taking are affecting me today and for the forseeable future.

    One of the biggest flaws in your own analysis is in assuming that the economy is going to recover and jobs are going to grow in spectacular fashion; the cuts already made and those in the pipleline are going to not just put the brakes on growth, but send it into a downward trajectory.

    He has most certainly not moved the ball toward universal health care; he didn't make even the slightest effort to advocate for anything that would.  And when someone thinks cutting maternal/child health and nutrition programs, and cutting funds from community health centers that primarily serve the poor, is preferable to raising taxes on the wealthy, it's hard to make the argument that Obama really has people's health and well-being at heart.

    And here's another news flash for you: we don't have to balance the budget, and we don't have to stop spending.  Those who are advocating for a balanced budget, for slashing spending, for imposing triggers and caps, are either woefully ignorant on economics or using this false crisis to engineer a socially conservative agenda - or both.

    If you're wealthy, work on Wall Street, count your annual income in the millions, I'm sure Obama's presidency has been a great success; for the rest of us, it has been and likely will continue to be punishingly cruel.

    Parent

    If Obama leaves office (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    with 5.3% unemployment, people at every level will love him.  That will impact almost everyone, no matter where they live.

    The numbers I used above are the conservative estimates Anne. The more ambitious estimates have him adding jobs far more quickly.  As I mentioned, I chose the most conservative numbers because I knew you'd attack any stat that made Obama look good.

    To put this in perspective: We are already ahead of these projections because the numbers I reference have unemployment never falling below 9% for all of 2011.  We are already at 8.8%.

    You accuse me of not giving you facts.  I am giving you facts.  You are just choosing to ignore them now.

    Parent

    IWe are at a 8.8% unemployment rate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    because that rate does not include people who have stopped looking for work or who are underemployed.

    Parent
    ABG, if that happens I owe you a beer (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    or the libation of your choice.

    I think he has about as much chance of sprouting wings and flying out of the WH in 2016 as he does getting the unemployment rate to 5.3%, any way you want to measure it

    Parent

    Guess it could happen if enough (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    people drop out of the job market because there are not enough McJobs to go around (i.e.60,000 people applying for 13,000 McDonald jobs) or they come up with another change in the calculation method.

     

    Parent

    The austerity program that Obama is (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    pushing is not going to create any jobs, ABG; so there is no way Obama's getting the unemployment rate to 5.3%.

    Austerity programs do not create jobs.  Lowering corporate taxes does not create jobs.  Tax cuts on the wealthy does not increase revenue or create jobs.

    And it might behoove you to appreciate the following (my bold):

    CBO's baseline projections are not intended to be a forecast of future budgetary outcomes; rather, they serve as a neutral benchmark that legislators and others can use to assess the potential effects of policy decisions. Consequently, they incorporate the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending will remain unchanged.

    There are big changes already happening, and others on the way; I think this means your projections are meaningless.

    Parent

    Truer words were never spoken (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    These are not job creating measures. He can say cutting spending is his priority rather than job creation, and some would agree with him. But it is not going to create anywhere near enough jobs to get to 5.3%.

    Parent
    How are these new jobs added? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    Where are they coming from....I read from you that they are coming directly from Obama, he's giving birth to them :)  But he's a dude and doesn't have the equipment.  So where are these jobs actually coming from.  Where is the economy procreating jobs at?  We have little aggregate demand that would cause the economy to do this.

    Parent
    good analysis (none / 0) (#82)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:36:47 AM EST
    i enjoyed reading this comment.

    Parent
    excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    but i read the whole piece by John Judis, & this was nowhere in that piece:

    He will likely be a two term president because he will seem more reasonable than the conservatives and he will oversee and eventually receive credit for the inevitable recovery of the economy as viewed at the end of his term, and he will have overseen the largest period of job growth in our nation's history and opened the discussions or moved the ball materially on universal healthcare, gay marriage, gays in the military, balancing the budget and raising taxes on the rich, while appointing 3-4 supreme court justices, ending two wars and overseeing the transformation of the Middle East . . .

    you say you are "translating" the Judis piece, but translators don't just make sh!t up

    anyway i thought the Judis piece was clear enough w/out your "translation" - & what that piece says (title & subtitle) is this:

    Trouble Ahead
    Obama Has Chosen the Wrong Economic Message

    deal with it

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    "and he will have overseen the largest period of job growth in our nation's history"

    ??

    Parent

    Welcome back (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Clearly, you've been away for awhile.  Allow me to introduce you to ABG.

    Parent
    My understanding is that (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    if the unemployment rate continues to drop at the same pace that it has for the past year for the next 6 years, Obama will have overseen the addition of more jobs to the economy than any other President.

    He's already added more jobs in 2 years than Bush did in 8.

    People here scoff at that kind of thing as being no bog deal because of the hole we're in, but that hole is going to look a lot more shallow in 2016 and Obama is going to rightfully get credit for it.

    Parent

    The drop is by NOT counting people who (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    are no longer looking..

    And did you miss that bit about fewer people are employed now than anytime after 1983????

    Face facts. He's a one termer.

    Parent

    Just to keep us focused (none / 0) (#16)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    The prior record for the longest stretch of continuous job growth was 52 months (4.3 years) under Bush I believe.  Most conservative estimates indicate that Obama will do it for 6, which is why  made the statement.

    Parent
    So that's why Bush will be considered (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by dk on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    by historians as the second best president ever, just after Obama, right?

    Parent
    May we assume you have (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    suitable employment and health care?

    Parent
    You can (2.00 / 1) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    assume that that is completely irrelevant to whether my points are accurate and fully supportable.

    Let me say this more shortly, if Obama wins and the country continues down the economic growth and employment path it is now on until 2016.

    Based on the CBO estimate (which everyone says is fairly pessimistic), Obama will walk out of the presidency with 5.3% unemployment, 15-20 more million people covered by healthcare, 3 new supreme court justices, most of whom will be women, gays serving openly in the military and two wars wrapped up.

    And that's the worst case scenario.

    Parent

    15 - 20 million more people covered by (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    health insurance? Seems that you were claiming that Obama was going to provide 35 million more people with health insurance just a couple of months ago.

    Parent
    shouldn't that be 10-20 million more (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    people will be forced to buy insurance instead of getting real health care?  :)

    Parent
    MO Blue (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    The plan will provide coverage to 35 million more people.

    But in 2016, 2 years after its full implementation, the program will still be ramping up.  Conservative estimates I've read place the number at 15-20.  It could be as high as 30 but I didn't want to stretch to make the point.  

    I used conservative numbers because I knew folks like you would pick apart the statement.

    Parent

    Full implementation and just ramping up? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    Four years to implement a program and two years after full implementation it is just ramping up to cover less than half of the people? Six years to ramp up. Great program design Obama has going for him.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:32:54 PM EST
    Yes. The exchanges kick off in 2014 with penalties really coming into line in 2015 and 2016.  It will take a year or so of people realizing that they will be penalized before the begin buying in in earnest.

    If the Massachusetts example is a guide, it will take a number of years after 2014 to hit the projected thresholds.

    Parent

    It was designed that way (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    because any program contemplated by anyone in this area had a 4-8 year ramp up plan.  

    You don't change the healthcare globally instantly.  It is ridiculously complicated and will take years

    Parent

    Just like Medicare did? (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    Oh, wait - Medicare was up and running and the people were enrolled within one year - and that was at a time when technology wasn't anything like what it is now.

    This "it's so complicated" excuse is just utter crap.

    It had a long ramp-up timeline to make sure it gave the industry plenty of time to make as much money as possible and set new baseline premium levels, and so that it didn't interfere with the 2010 midterms and 2012 presidential election; if it was as great a program as they want us to think it is, they'd want it to get up and running as soon as possible so people could express their gratitude at the polls.

    That's normally what happens when good policy is implemented; this policy is garbage.

    Parent

    The outlandish & unchecked hikes (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    over the past 2 years in the costs of health insurance will ensure that very few more people are covered, especially as real incomes decline. There will be less and less real health care coverage as fewer and fewer people will be able to afford private plans, and the deficit hawks will see to it that the numbers covered by 'public' plans decline as the coverage given to smaller numbers becomes less and less satisfactory.  

    Where on earth are the physicians, nutritionists and number crunchers showing how much it costs this nation to cut back on meaningful public health care and food stamps, because the cost of paying for resulting ill-health and loss of human potential is so great.  

    I'm going back to unreality TV.

     

    Parent

    It was designed that way (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:54:31 PM EST
    so at not to impact elections and re-elections.

    I'm just wondering if it will work.  Who knows?  Maybe.

    Parent

    Complicated, complicated (none / 0) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    you sound like a Republican.

    Parent
    there are no penalties (none / 0) (#84)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:46:19 AM EST
    This is a falsehood.  The bill has no teeth...no penalty anymore...maybe a ding on your credit.

    Parent
    Someday it will finally dawn on you that (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    having insurance is not the same as having actual health care; because that's the reality: insurance does not equal care.

    I am currently paying almost $800/month for insurance that has an $800 deductible and 20% co-pays; I have to shell out almost $10,000 before the first dollar of the cost of actual care is covered.  

    I have insurance, and so far, I am managing to pay for it; that makes me, ironically, one of the lucky ones.

    How many of those currently uninsured do you think are in that position because they don't have $10,000 to spend on it?

    It isn't insurance that's the answer, ABG, and the sooner you understand that your hero, Barack Obama, blew a golden opportunity to truly reform this system, the sooner you can stop being an obstacle to real reform.

    Parent

    2012 isn't a given (none / 0) (#66)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    The latest polls show the American public has no faith in the economy straightening out any time soon. If the Democrats continue to play into the hands of the Republicans over the deficit rather than focusing on actual job creation, Obama won't have the chance meet any of those projections.

    The economy will determine the election even if the Republicans put up their wackiest.

    It will be just like 2008. The Democrats could have run Daffy Duck and won. The country was disgusted with Bush. They wanted a new direction. If the economy is bad they'll feel the same in 2012.

    Parent

    Please provide a link showing (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    that "everyone" finds the CBO estimate "fairly pessimistic".

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Do you ever do links?? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 08:36:37 AM EST


    Parent
    quite a rosy view you paint there... (none / 0) (#17)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    especially on gay issues. Only straight people paint such a great view on the President's action and outlook on gay rights.I am a gay man and most if not all of my friends think he gets the heeby jeebies around us gay folk.I won't elaborate on how and what my lesbian friends think of him...

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    has done more for gay rights in three years than any president has over the course of their entire term.

    I think that is an easily supportable statement.

    DOMA enforcement
    DADT Repeal
    Lifted HIV Travel Ban
    Awarded Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King
    Appointe first DNC transgender member
    Provided benefits to same sex foreign employees
    Created first National Resource Center for LGBT and funded it with a three year grant
    Signed Matthew Shepare Hate Crimes Act
    Banned job discrinmination based on gender at the federal government (largest employer)

    Etc.

    I know he might give you the creeps, but his record, when you look at it from top to bottom compared to any other potus, is superior.

    And not just by a little. He's better by a whole lot.

    Parent

    Did he author or sponsor any of that said (none / 0) (#24)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    legislation? Nancy Pelosi and members of the Democratic Caucus are to be thanked since many of them had been working on these issues for a number of years.I never said Obama gives me the creeps just noticing a fact that he does seem squeamish about gay folk, the Obama's don't seem to have any gay friends.They are democrats and many find that odd.I know I do.

    Parent
    Any (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    post that starts with

    Obama has done more for __ in three years than any president has over the course of their entire term

    Should be either immediately laughed at or ignored.

    Parent

    ignored (none / 0) (#85)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:48:42 AM EST
    laughed at is giving too much credit.

    Parent
    I am a straight woman and I would have (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    to agree

    think he gets the heeby jeebies around us gay folk.


    Parent
    Bernie (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    McClurkin anyone?

    Parent
    Donnie i think (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    Rick Warren, not standing with SF mayor for photo re gay marriage . . . .

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    I am sooo bad with names.

    Parent
    I would also add (none / 0) (#36)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    Reverend James Meeks an old long time buddy of Obama's from Chicago who's on record as stating that homosexuality is an evil sickness and that asian and latino's are not proper minorities.

    Parent
    The economy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    isn't minutiae.

    Parent
    It isn't (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    But battling over $40 billion in spending over 7 months is.

    Parent
    Any reduction (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    in spending is bad for the economy and taking things in the wrong direction. What fight, exactly, are you keeping your powder dry for?

    Parent
    From 100,000 feet, (none / 0) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    the measurement that counts, he'll be the worst Democratic President since the 19th century.

    Parent
    Which Democratic President of the (none / 0) (#90)
    by observed on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:21:44 AM EST
    20th century was worse---Woodrow Wilson?

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    Obama doesn't stand well with any of them.

    They've all had flaws and people who habit this site often point to one particular flaw to completely dismiss a full body of work.  So be it.

    But, IMO, Obama has steadfastly maintained the status quo.  A status quo the keeps us moving steadily downhill.  He does this in spite of glaring evidence that our strength is waning and why and worse, had the public support at the start to make a significant course correction but insisted instead on the status quo.

    It's almost like Buchanan sitting there while the place was coming undone and doing nothing.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton, LBJ and Woodrow Wilson (none / 0) (#93)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    (based on an incomplete Obama term and complete terms for other Democratic Presidents). However, these judgements can only be made accurately after the current President's term in office is over.
    Also remember that Harry Trueman left office with one of the lowest popularity ratings ever recorded for an American President. History has however judged him differently...

    Parent
    I wasn't sure if Obama was clearly (none / 0) (#99)
    by observed on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    better than FDR already (outside of his own mind).
    Thanks for the objective feedback.

    Parent
    Heh ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    Clinton left office the with the highest popularity of any President ... and some want to try to lump him in with LBJ and Woodrow Wilson.

    Pretty funny ...

    Parent

    "dirty hippies" (none / 0) (#83)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:42:29 AM EST
    why buy that bs narrative?  Clearly you are correct about the paid campaign worker here...Come up with a better description of those that see the reality and are done with lies.  Obama is bad news...and it becomes clearer each passing day.  He will destroy the Democratic party.  And I will not vote for him, regardless of the lesser evils argument.  He puts the Democratic and progressive stamp on all this.  This is all kabuki theater and it must be stood up to and fought.  No passive dirty hippie talk.

    Parent
    Klassicheart (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    You are a fraud. LBJ destroyed the Democratic Party. But he has a lot of love in this blog.


    Parent
    Are you sure, Donald (none / 0) (#94)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    that all the people ABG trades punches with are "DFH"s? In my personal life, I have never come across a single "DFH" with as much love for the Clintons (and the conservatism of the Clinton Presidency and the HRC primary run) as the majority of people in this blog. Muted "DFH"s?


    Parent
    nycstray (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    This is based on what exactly?

    In what situation have you ever seen Obama around any gay person and thought that he looked uncomfortable?

    What is this based on?

    His gay (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    bashing tour with Donnie McClurkin. It wasn't lost on many people how he felt about gay people.

    Parent
    who knows how Obama feels (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    about gay people

    the point is, during the primaries, Obama had Little Gay-Bashin' Donnie tag along on campaign stops in areas where Obama thought that large groups of homophobic Christian African American voters needed to be reassured that Obama was "one of them"

    so, regardless of how Obama really feels about gay people, he is not above using us as bait to attract the votes of homophobes - & that's all we need to know about him

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    Obama in 2007/8/9 was not above pandering to homophobes or homophobic evangelicals.  I wrote a diary about it back in the day.  It'll be interesting to see how he campaigns in 2012.  I don't think he will campaign the same way.  The evangelical vote was always imaginary IMO but it's definitely not going to be there now.

    Parent
    Wasn't it Obama who wouldn't appear (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    with the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom?

    But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

    "I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

    Link

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    Obama did that

    Parent
    Actually I would not have my picture taken (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    with Gavin Newsome either - he is way too much better looking than I am.

    I might be inclined to ascribe Obama's reluctance to  being compared with a future rival rather than gay associations.

    Parent

    nah, it follows O's M.O. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    avoid controversy at all cost and vote present ;)

    He doesn't mind coming here for the money, but just keep him away from the 'common folks' in the area . . . . DFHs, Gays, Working Class etc . . .

    Parent

    Obama is a fraud (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:51:28 AM EST
    It was clear in the primaries he'd never advocate for gays. In fact, he never advocates for any of the base that elected him.  Rather amazing their blind loyalty under the circumstances.  Like a victim of abuse.

    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    that was just typical campaign trail BS.  It was an error but I don't think it implies that Obama has a problem with gays personally.  Policy-wise he has done a fair amount to help on LGBT issues.  He supported same-sex marriage in 1996...which was pretty advanced at the time.  He's a politician.  He's not above associating with people that have homophobic beliefs.  

    He also has his "consensus building" strategies.  Like choosing Rick Warren who is HEINOUS in every way to speak at the Inauguration.  That pisses me off far more.  But I assume Obama thought it would accomplish some greater goal.  

    Of course people are free to disagree with me but speaking as a gay lady that's how I feel.

    Parent

    I'm not understanding your comments (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    at all today.  Really?  It's just typical campaign trail BS to take to the road with a hate-monger?  

    Whatever.

    Parent

    a point i made earlier (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    is that it doesn't matter how Obama feels about gay folks personally

    he has demonstrated that he is willing to use us as chum - that is all i need to know, & i think that goes farther than "associating with people who have homophobic beliefs" because he's a politician - to my mind, it's like a Republican candidate taking a holocaust denier along on a campaign visit to antisemitic voters

    but, that said, it's interesting that he supported gay marriage (or, as i like to call it, marriage equality) . . . in 1996!

    you do know that he has supposedly changed his mind & now supports separate-but-not-equal "civil unions"?

    Parent

    i agree w/what you said (none / 0) (#68)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    but until the govt gets out of the marriage biz, heterosexual unions are getting a boatload of "special benefits" at the federal level

    that's why it's wrong, imo, to advocate "civil unions" for same-sex unions only, & why it's wrong to leave this issue up to the states

    civil unions/states' rights = Obama's position on this issue

    (Hillary's position too, iirc)

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:13:27 PM EST
    bargaining chip is a better description?

    Parent
    Bradley Manning (none / 0) (#87)
    by klassicheart on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:53:07 AM EST
    need I say more.

    Parent
    The Politics Of Deficit Reduction | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment