home

The Deal Will Lead To Less Fiscal Stimulus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:11:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In an otherwise typically intelligent col;umn, Paul Krugman seems oblivious that The Deal will lead to less government spending NEXT fiscal year. Krugman writes:

I’m often asked how I can oppose that deal given my consistent position in favor of more stimulus. The answer is that yes, I believe that stimulus can have major benefits in our current situation — but these benefits have to be weighed against the costs. And the tax-cut deal is likely to deliver relatively small benefits in return for very large costs.

I think Krugman overstates the stimulative effect of The Deal because he completely ignores that the deficit caused by The Deal will be used to bludgeon federal government spending. What The Deal does is trade out fiscal spending stimulus for tax cut stimulus. Which is the opposite of what Krugman says we need:

What the government should be doing in this situation is spending more while the private sector is spending less, supporting employment while those debts are paid down. And this government spending needs to be sustained: we’re not talking about a brief burst of aid; we’re talking about spending that lasts long enough for households to get their debts back under control. The original Obama stimulus wasn’t just too small; it was also much too short-lived, with much of the positive effect already gone.

The Deal insures that this will not happen.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Deal Will Lead To Less Fiscal Stimulus | 152 comments (152 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The thing (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    that nobody seems to be saying is that these tax cuts did nothing before. The GOP seems to be making the same argument that Obama tried to make: things will get worse if we don't do this.

    What I'm hearing (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    is that if they are removed now all of our leaders are terrified about what will happen to our economy.  I think we will still experience double dip, there just isn't anyway not to see that coming.  And there will be deflation, there just isn't any other way.  But they want to believe that if they can do this one thing, maybe it will all ease away.  Just like every other we need your grandchildrens money for "this one thing or we will shoot the dog" scenario we've been given over the last two years.  Our President hasn't done anything that would have enabled this single action to do anything more though than delay inevitable.

    But hey, at least the government sold Citigroup at a profit when the getting was gettin good in the juiced markets.

    Parent

    I think so (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    too. I think there will be a double dip because Obama didnt do what he needed to do 2 years ago. This package just makes us have more debt a few years down the road and nothing else.

    Parent
    they're not terrified what will happen (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    to the economy. If that were true they would have done a big enough stimulus 18 mos ago. All they are terrified of is the political impact of it. they have no leadership abilities to say 'look, we are stopping the Bush tax cuts and taking a hard look at tax structure this year. The middle class will get retroactive tax cuts when we are done.'

    Parent
    But Obama was listening to Summers (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    and Geithner and the Chicago School, we already know that they were convinced that none of this was going to happen to this degree.  Though most of the economists that I "listen" to insisted that it was only half of what was going to be needed to prevent horrible unemployment.  They figured that if they allowed the banks to "cheat" on their insolvency and the fed flooded them with free money, that this would all ease itself down the road.

    Parent
    I believe that Obama is (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    of the Chicago School of thought.

    Doesn't anyone remember that he was slow out of the starting gate in addressing the economy during the campaign?  He seemed at times pained to discuss government as a solution, at least to me.

    I expected that he would want to limit the government response, what I did not expect was that he would be so unrealistic in his estimate of what the least that could be done and be effective was.

    That's where Summers and Geithner came in, imo.  When he needed assurance that his ideological inclinations would not be too risky for him.

    Had he been inclined to go farther and still take a cautionary approach to spending, the stimulus could have been crafted differently.  They could have designed a core package and attached extra expenditures based on actual economic progress or lack thereof.  So, if the employment number was lacking in January 2010, the government would automatically release additional funds and if it was a good number, the funds would not be released.

    But at the end of the day, I think Obama is convinced that only the private sector can bring us out of this economic collapse.  He's wrong and he'll go down in the history books as having been wrong.  Not much good that does us, but that's what's going to happen.

    Parent

    You and Military Tracy are correct (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by esmense on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    They are clinging to a set of economic beliefs that have failed the country (and the world) at large -- but they are too invested in those beliefs to accept that failure. Doing so, and changing course, not only goes against everything they've been taught, everything on which their own claim to being "the smartest guys in the room" is based, and everything their peers and those they hold in the most respect equally hold as self-evident, it also requires facing up to the fact that these beliefs, and the actions based on those beliefs, have served their own and/or their financial supporters' self-interest (handsomely) while destroying the economy and causing great suffering.

    They'd much prefer to keep on hoping that everything will, just a little more slowly perhaps than they had anticipated, eventually right itself. Without them having to change their beliefs or stop doing the things that have personally been so profitable for them (like refusing to help pay and/or asking those who finance their political careers to pay, through higher taxes, for the publicly financed wars, bail outs, subsidies, government spending programs, etc., etc, from which they and their firms and/or those greatly -- to the tune of billions and billions of dollars -- benefit.

    Parent

    Wow. Great news! (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    The following article was planted, I mean appeared, on the front page of the Times today:

    An excerpt:

    "...a hefty portion of the $858 billion tax package will benefit middle- and upper-middle-income Americans -- precisely the demographic that felt neglected the last two years as the White House and Congress focused on the major health care law and on helping the unemployed and people facing foreclosure.

    These new tax breaks are in addition to the cuts Mr. Obama had always planned to maintain on all but the highest incomes, and they could pay big political dividends to Mr. Obama and other Democrats in 2012 -- a point that the president and some senior advisers are counting on..."

    Ring-a-ding.

    All that worrying about the deficit gone.

    Happy days are here again.

    I'll bet the public option will be back soon too.

    Maybe they are right... (none / 0) (#8)
    by masslib on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    An extra $20 bucks in the pay check, certainly more for upper middle class...but we'll all pay for it in the long run.  I really hope we are not down to that.  That's a great race to the bottom.  

    Parent
    But, the referenced article (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    says that some Democrats are calling for a "laser-like focus" on the middle class in the months ahead, so all will be well. And, Senator Jim Webb has become a "vociferous proponent" calling the package "the ultimate stimulus plan."   Sounds like an Austan Goolsbee inspired puff piece overall.

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by masslib on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:18:51 AM EST
    Krugman said something along the lines of well, obviously austerity is dead, when details of the Deal emerged.  He seemed to miss that within a day of the Deal the Democrats in Congress passed a measure freezing all federal department budgets.  This deal will be used to bludgeon spending.  I don't know how Krugman can miss that.

    Austerity is dead today (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:20:46 AM EST
    but only for today.  It will be alive and hungry tomorrow, and that is going to OUTRAGE what is left of the middle class and the poor....if you can even afford outrage at all these days.

    Parent
    I listened to Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:19:28 AM EST
    answering the press questions again today.  I was too mad the other day to listen objectively.  This can only lay claim to being a short term good thing, and President Clinton is obviously very scared about what could happen if taxes increase on anyone....to include corporate America it would seem because he spoke about how having low corporate taxes brought two Chinese owned manufacturing plants to Nevada.  Nobody wants to talk about making the deficit worse and everyone who can be called to task on the economy is terrified about where the economy will go if there is anymore pressure placed on people.  They are terrified of deflation.

    I understand that they have to attempt to stop it, but at this late date that isn't going to be easy to do AT ALL.  This President miscalculated horribly what was happening to our economy in those first 100 days and that is where he should have dumped his political capital, but he didn't have the will to do what needed to be done either. And the Democrats who enabled George Bush and refused to take him to task for anything at all didn't help either.  They should all be ashamed of themselves, they were complict in many ways getting us to this horrible position.

    This is a short term bandaid, it spells bad things for everyone it claims to help longterm though.  Even Clinton was talking about how the deficit was going to eventually have to be slashed.  You can't do that in a manner that doesn't devastate people though unless there is deflation and things begin to cost less, and deflation will devastate people in the short term...the thing they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent happening right now.

    Our everyday life is now the looney bin.....you don't have to be locked away any place anymore if you want to visit insanity.  And all of our recent past leaders are responsible for this.  LITERALLY ALL OF THEM!

    Clinton does want banks that have come completely clean though.  At least he does understand that until we reach that, the lending will not begin again that will rebuild the economy.

    Well, actually... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by masslib on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    That's interesting because that goes against a very popular Republican argument that many Democrats are latching onto, which is that our corporate taxes are too high.  He seems to be arguing they are low enough to have brought companies from China.

    I wouldn't read to much into Clinton though.  Disappointing but seems like a political favor more than anything to me.

    Parent

    I think he genuinely cares about the economy (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:29:31 AM EST
    and I think he has always geniunely cared about this country.  I don't doubt Clinton on any of that.  And I think he is somewhat like a general too, like his friend Wes Clark that I wanted to tell to go "eff" himself once too in a similar situation.  He realizes that if he tells us all that our President was an idiot and got us into a really horrible crossfire and ambush in a battle that should have never happened, that being currently outraged at our President will not help many of us survive the crossfire ambush and that is what we must somehow survive at this moment.

    Parent
    Clinton has lost me (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    As soon as he opened his yapper a few weeks ago, and started talking about how Americans just aren't ready for the jobs of these new times, well, that was it...he proved himself an absolute piece of crap. He knows as well as anyone we could have full employment in this country ANY time we really wanted it.

    That the derivatives mess should've been stopped in his administration when it could've been prevented from doing the damage it has also disturbs me and alters my opinion of him. When it came to facing down Wall Street he proved as weak as any president. His omnibus ax bill seems to have been the ONE really good thing he accomplished, but it came at the terrible price of an inequality in wealth that accelerated during his presidency faster than it ever had, and in those derivatives he did NOTHING about when warned clearly and rationally.

    Parent

    Derivatives are a horrible part of the (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    Clinton legacy.  I think he said what he said about Americans not being educated enough for the upcoming jobs though because he sees how far behind we are in the world now where education is concerned.  And it is true that India is going to eat our lunch where educated workers are concerned.  Clinton is trying to fight the Republicans though on gutting college funding, I think he prepreparing for that fight because he knows it is coming.  Unfortunately President Obama doesn't prepare for anything.  He'll take it one day at a time and get his a$$ kicked the same way day after day.

    Parent
    Speaking of derivatives (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by DFLer on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    a five webpage article in todays NYT online:

    A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives

    On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan. The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable -- and controversial -- fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.

    Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk.



    Parent
    Amazing the Lengths (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    to which fans of the Clinton's will find a way to explain away any support of Obama position that they don't like.

    Clinton is doing a favor for Obama?  You've got to be kidding me.  If that is true, Clinton isn't nearly the man many here believe him to be.

    How about Occam's Razor: he supports Obama because he believes that it's the best deal.

    Parent

    He said he believes it's the best deal . . . (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    Obama could get

    Parent
    You forgot (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    He said it's the best deal Obama could get right now.

    Parent
    Slate's Political Podcast (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    Did a good job last week of going back before the elections to discuss why the dems didn't push for reform then.  

    People forget where we are and where we came from in making pronouncements about what Obama could have pushed for in the 6 weeks or so after the elections.

    People who believe that it made any sense to battle for weeks with the GOP had little grasp of the real world ramifications of letting the tax cuts expire.  If you are going to play chicken, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. I am not willing to accept them and Obama had to do what he had to do.

    Parent

    I think t he country would have been willing (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    to accept the consequences. the fact that Cokie Roberts violently disagrees with me tells me I am right.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:59:25 PM EST
    "However, the agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans, and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs, and to minimize the chances that it will slip back, which is what has happened in other financial collapses. Like, that's what Japan faced, and it's something that we have to avoid in America"

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/12/obama_president_clinton_press.html

    Either Clinton believes that this was the best deal anyone could have struck or you believe Clinton is lying.

    Your choice.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:04:50 PM EST
    There's a heeeee-yOOOOOOOOOge difference what Clinton said and claiming that this is the "best deal anyone could have struck", particularly if "anyone" had been willing to have this debate before the mid-terms, ...

    ... or had previously shown an ounce of spine in standing up to Republicans, ...

    ... or ...

    Parent

    You should (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    1. Go back and review what parties wanted to delay the vote on taxes until after the midterms. Hint: Not Obama.

    2. How was healthcare reform not standing up to republicans.  This is where Obama is completely correct.  Because "success" is only defined as complete and crushing victory on every point, people forgot that Team Obama pushed through a piece of legislation absolutely despised by republicans over their every objection.

    A year later, that didn't even happen.

    Parent
    Psst..... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:39:29 PM EST
    Guess which party controlled both houses of Congress and had the ability to call a vote any time they wanted?  Hint: it wasn't the Republicans.

    Parent
    No it's not (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    Go back and review what parties wanted to delay the vote on taxes until after the midterms. Hint: Not Obama.

    Really?  Obama really wanted a vote on the tax cuts before the midterm?  Love to see a link for that ...

    Because "success" is only defined as complete and crushing victory on every point...

    That's just as silly as Hannity grudgingly acknowledging that "Bush isn't perfect".  Set up an imaginary, impossibly high standard (made of straw), then knock it down.  Of course, that POS health insurance bill isn't a victory by any standard.

    BTW - Obama's HIR bill is the Republican plan of 1993.

    Impressive leadership.

    Parent

    The point (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:35:08 PM EST
    is that Reid and others seeing the wave coming decided not to have that vote earlier.  It was strategic and there were logical and completely supportable justifications for it.

    They were all wrong of course.

    But regardless, if the GOP wasn't going to budge two weeks away from the end of the year (and fiscal disaster) what is the argument that says they would have budged MORE if the fight occurred 5 months earlier?

    Let's remember where we were in September and why this happened, shall we. I believe Obama's name only comes up in this article once and here is where it shows up:

    "I'm not into exercises that are futile and Pyrrhic," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who expressed doubt that Democrats could muster the 60 votes needed to pass President Obama's tax plan in the face of unified GOP opposition."

    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120687-dems-put-off-tax-cut-votes-until-after-e lection

    But I am sure if Obama got up and yelled a lot and stuff, the GOP would have become less unified.

    Or something.  I don't really understand what voodoo you think would work, but whatever.

    Parent

    The point was that (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by observed on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    getting Republicans voting against tax relief for the middle class could have influenced the election

    Parent
    Actually, MY point (since I'M the one ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    ... who brought it up) was just one more example of a failure of leadership from the WH - just like the HCR bill where the Congress was begging for WH leadership, and Obama sat on the sidelines safely out of the line of fire.

    It's not about the unity of the GOP, it's about Obama's unwillingness to actually fight for something ...

    ... anything ...

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    That wasn't directed at you, Observed.

    Parent
    So what if Clinton thinks (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    it's a good deal?  Does that mean it is?

    I don't think so.

    Bill Clinton is being the Good Democratic Soldier, trying to salvage the brand as best he can; there is no way that the president who raised taxes to help those who needed it most doesn't understand what the big picture holds - especially when both the Republicans and Obama have been vocal about what they're going to do about spending in 2011 - he's too smart not to understand what tax cuts + spending cuts mean for the future.

    And because I know he's smarter than that, it has been hugely disappointing to see him shilling for bad policy for months now; too bad his love of the limelight has eclipsed his ability to say and do the right thing.

    Parent

    Is it his love of the limelight (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    or does a certain SoS play into his support of the admin?

    it is disappointing, whatever the reason.

    Parent

    Fair Point (3.50 / 2) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:33:55 PM EST
    The fact that Clinton likes it doesn't mean it is a good deal.  But it does mean that it is a deal that a respected Dem with solid credentials and history of operating in  hostile environment supports.

    There are two arguments: the one over whether this is going to do what people think it will do. The other one over correctness of Obama's characterization of the situation and how a fight would play out.

    I actually disagree with Obama's optimism over the impact of the deal but agree with him that it was likely the best deal possible.

    It's a poor bill, but it's better than the most likely alternative. Fun game:

    Provide an example of playing chicken against the FoxNews/Palin/Boehner block (expecting a rational opponent) and it actually working out.   Not 20 years ago, but the crazy GOP of today.

    Take your time.

    Parent

    That would be a fun game ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    Provide an example of playing chicken against the FoxNews/Palin/Boehner block (expecting a rational opponent) and it actually working out.   Not 20 years ago, but the crazy GOP of today.

    ... if Obama's idea of "playing chicken" wasn't to veer off the road a quarter mile out as soon as he sees the GOP headlights.

    BTW - Yeah .... the GOP of 20 years ago was sooooooo much more sane.

    Pffftt...

    Parent

    Actually, what's amazing (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    is the lengths you go to tell us all how wonderful he is, what a great job he's done, and how he's the Most Progressive President Ever in our lifetime! (TM)

    Seriously, he's tanking in so many ways, that if he doesn't do something bold right now and a lot of other things turn around, people will be asking "Barack, who?" come 12:01 pm on inaguration day 2012.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    has been an above average president in his first two years.  I'll put his accomplishments up against anyone's.  He can still screw it all up though.

    Note: whether someone is a great president and whether a president can be re-elected are two different things.

    See George Bush.

    Parent

    If Obama is above-average, all I (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    can say is, "average" has dipped to an all-time low.

    A judge in Virginia ruled today that the individual mandate in the health whatever Act is unconstitutional; the legislation is going to be picked apart, piece by piece, to the point where almost none of what Obama "accomplished" via that legislation will ever come to fruition, making the whole thing an epic fail.  As it was destined to be, really.

    As for "See George Bush," I regret to inform you that that is exactly who many of us see when we look at Obama - only what we see is worse.

    Parent

    Elsewhere I reference reports about the judge (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    and his Republican, Bush II appointee background.
    While it will be interesting to see how it all turns out in the SCt (read: What does Justice Kennedy think about the Commerce Clause), it is oddly funny now to see (via Gawker) that the Virginia judge apparently has a reported $15K to $50K interest in a Republican consulting firm that fought against the health care reform measure. Funny and fascinating...in a number of ways.

    Parent
    It was only a matter of time, and if it hadn't (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    been Virginia, it would have been somewhere else; you can't have been following this and not have known that.

    While you are making points about Republican-appointed judges - as if judges appointed by Democrats are beacons of objectivity, always, and never have investments that might be a conflict - maybe you could address the way-too-many Bush 43-appointed US Attorneys who are still in their jobs, thanks to a Democratic president who apparently is pleased with their job performance and feels no need to put a real Democratic stamp on that aspect of the justice system.

    Parent

    My real point on the Virginia judge (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    is the matter of appearance...especially as to any financial interests (assuming that the info came from required yearly federal financial finlings.) I did not say that anyone was pure; only suggested that the instant situation appears to be far from pure.

    Parent
    I wonder (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    Did we question Judge George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, who was the first judge to rule on the health care law.  Since he was appointed by Clinton, should we accept any conservatives' argument that because he found the mandate consitutional, it's only because of his political leanings?  I'm not saying it isn't true, but if we accept that for Republican appointees, we then must accept it for Democratic appointees, no?

    Parent
    My real issue (apart from political persuasion) (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    is the matter of financial disclosure. That is important. "Passive" owner or not, my recollection of the financial disclosure forms that I was obligated to fill out each year did not have a statement in the header or elsewhere about "passivity" in ownership. Who knows? Recusal is always a decision for the judge. Once again, it is a matter of appearance.

    Parent
    Thanin (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    Not sure what the 2 rating was for, except that you have a history.  I asked a perfectly good question - I certainly remember folks around here being up in arms about Judge Vaughn Walker's feelings (and persuasion) while presiding over and ruling on Prop 8.

    But some people like to live in an echo chamber I guess and not like having inconsistency pointed out.

    Parent

    The 2 was because I disagreed with your post... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Thanin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:19:46 AM EST
    I find it to be a false equivalence.

    Parent
    Good to know (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    For the many times I disagree with your comments.

    Good future knowledge to have.

    Parent

    Is that a joke? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Thanin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    I've watched you do the same thing for years.

    Parent
    No you haven't (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    I only rate low when someone makes a personal attack.  

    But again - good to know.

    Parent

    Is that seriously your position? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Thanin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    If I go back and pull up proof to the contrary will you acknowledge you're wrong?

    Parent
    Bring it on (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    Of course that would be against Jeralyn's rules, but you do what you gotta do.

    Parent
    I'd forgotten about that rule... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Thanin on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    but going back through your rankings reveals posts where you give 1 & 2s to comments that don't contain a personal insult.  

    I didn't go through everything since even I don't have that much time to waste, but I'll admit that there weren't as many as I had assumed there were, so I'll give you that.  Actually, since you've ranked a lot of posts, it's seems to be a very small fraction, which I was glad to see and makes me respect you more.

    So, now that time has passed since this back and forth, its very obvious to me how unimportant this was to begin with.  I get that it can be disrespectful to just down rank a post without even trying to have any kind of discussion about it, so point taken.  I'll try to be more respectful and less caustic.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 06:01:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Whenever I read (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    that people are seriously suggesting that Obama is worse than Bush I understand that they aren't very serious people.

    Parent
    Oh, sure - I'm not a serious person... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:54:06 PM EST
    that would be news to much of the TL community...

    You've got more excuses for Obama than there are days in the year, and now you've resorted to classifying those who see extension and expansion of the worst of the Bush policies as not "serious."

    Just keep telling yourself Obama's doing a great job and you'll be just like the 20-some percent who were still on Bush's side when he left office.

    Parent

    Disagree with Anne's positions if you like... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Thanin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:25:02 AM EST
    but don't make allegations that have no basis in fact.  Half the time I don't agree with her but after reading Anne for, what, 2 years now?  I know to never doubt her sincerity.

    Parent
    The point on Anne (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:08:09 AM EST
    OK look.  Let's assume that we're all progressives here.  Assuming that, W is basically the worst president you can ever imagine.  The wars, Katrina, all of it.  Absolutely horrible.

    When people loosely throw around the fact that Obama is worse than Bush, it's not just that it is an insult to Obama. It's an insult to the people who lost lives and property in Katrina.  It's an insult to the hundreds of thousands dead or injured in Iraq. It's an insult to the millions out of jobs right now as a result of his policies.

    He was the worst president of our lifetimes and for someone to casually throw around the idea that Obama (or heck, even Bush I, Reagan or Carter) were worse than Bush reflects real callousness about the misery BUsh caused.

    In all due respect, I won't just let that slide.  It's like the stupid comparisons that people make to mass murderers.  "George W. Bush is worse than Hitler!"  Uh, no. I don't like W eithe but Hitler killed millions.  Equating someone to him minimizes all of that.

    Equating Obama to Bush minimizes the bad done by Bush.

    Plus it is not true to boot.

    Parent

    W versus Reagan Versus Nixon (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:33:15 AM EST
    that's a tough choice for 'worst.' Glad  wasn't alive during Hoover.

    Those four go into my anti-pantheon. On the casualty/war figures, I would have to say Johnson was the worst. For natural disasters in the US, W, without a doubt. for pumping up the military-industrial complex, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and our current president.

    Civil liberties? Bush AND Obama. Criminal conduct in the prosecution of a conflict? for official conflicts, all except Hoover. Yes, this includes Obama. For unofficial, include Reagan as well.

    Maybe W was the worst in your lifetime, but he simply ranks among the worst of mine for the reasons mentioned.

    Obama rates pretty low with me. Each of the presidents mentioned had one or two good policy points. Add Carter in to the low because of Iran. I actually admire Carter and Volker's high inflation approach to  the economic/energy problems of the 1970s.

    Clinton had certain programs I didn't like. But he in no way ranks as low as the lows of the others.

    So... I don't view Obama as the liberal or progressive example you make him out to be. I think Nixon's Clean Air Act, water pollution act, EPA, Endagered Species Act, these are hallmarks of progressive legislation. The legislature worked hard for these.

    But by the same token Nixon was a power-hungry person who abused the laws.

    If you asked me, which you didn't, but I'll post anyway, Obama's Lily Ledbetter act was the opener. It also seems to be the closer. Financial reform? weak tea. Stimulus? weaker tea. Health insurance reform can't really be discussed yet except for the few parts that have taken effect. Continued casualties in Iraq, escalation in Afghanistan, idiotic policies that hurt Afghanis's such as poppy eradication...

    But in a time when audacity is needed, we aren't getting it. Two years in, there are no major jobs programs. there are some educational programs, but no job creation.

    Two years in, wages are stagnant, and, ironically, a conservative judge has challenged what I saw as the biggest giveaway of the health insurance reform, the mandates.

    Two years in, DADT is still in effect. It could have been ended with an executive order at any time during this administration.

    Now an extension and modification of a tax cut that helped shoot the deficit to the moon over a 10 year period. It would be better for us to 'tighten the belt and bite the bullet' even more and get revenues where they need to be. I'd be in the red, but the country would be better off.

    No accommodation for the 99'ers, for example. this seems to me to be akin to a person with a cut artery, and the doctor's talking about wight loss.

    Just the way I see it, ABM. I appreciate your posts, but I obviously don't see the same world you do in regards to this presidency.

    Parent

    Obama's demonstrably more (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    conservative than Bush on taxes; he's more authoritarian; his war policy in Afghanistan is just awful. He's NOT undoing Bush's mistakes; he might as well be Bush.

    Parent
    I probably shouldn't bother to (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:36:51 AM EST
    respond, but here goes:

    OK look.  Let's assume that we're all progressives here.  Assuming that, W is basically the worst president you can ever imagine.  The wars, Katrina, all of it.  Absolutely horrible.

    Yes, Bush was a bad president; no one is disputing that, but your assumptions need a little work.  For one, while I am about as liberal as one can be, not everyone who comments here is.  For another, be careful about having to make one person "the worst" in order to make someone else seem better by comparison; that kind of thing will bite you in the butt every time.

    You mentioned Katrina, but have you forgotten the BP oil disaster?  Not only was that not a shining moment for Obama, but the effects of the disaster are going to last for a long, long time.  The government may be telling us that we have nothing to fear from Gulf seafood, but that's not what I have read on my own.

    The wars...come on, ABG, really?  

    When people loosely throw around the fact that Obama is worse than Bush, it's not just that it is an insult to Obama. It's an insult to the people who lost lives and property in Katrina.  It's an insult to the hundreds of thousands dead or injured in Iraq. It's an insult to the millions out of jobs right now as a result of his policies.

    I guess I have to remind you that Obama has been the president for two years - not "only" two years - so he owns the policies that have failed to revive the economy, he owns the job losses, and he owns the fallout from the BP oil disaster.  

    There's nothing "loose" or cavalier about equating Obama with Bush, or even in saying that in some respects, Obama's worse.  Obama has a terrible record of civil liberties and privacy rights, he's broadened the state secrets privilege, his Justice Department seems to be going full-bore against anyone who dares to reveal that the government isn't playing fair.  There's indefinite detention, the prison at Bagram, the selective way in which people are being brought to trial.  There's the abject failure to hold anyone from the Bush administration accountable for all the terrible things that were done - things you think make Bush the worst president ever.  He sold us out to the insurance companies, used women as a bargaining chip, has failed to replace most of the US Attorneys, so the Bush influence continues.  He was a complete failure on the Dawn Johnsen nomination - he just let that die with nary a whimper.  His economic policies suck; his tax deal will be worse for the middle class than Bush's was.  The Deficit Commission, the wholesale incorporation of Republican, right-wing, conservative ideas on the economy, taxes and jobs.

    He was the worst president of our lifetimes and for someone to casually throw around the idea that Obama (or heck, even Bush I, Reagan or Carter) were worse than Bush reflects real callousness about the misery BUsh caused.

    Here's the thing, ABG: this isn't about making Obama look good by making others look worse; it's about dealing with what Obama is actually doing, or not doing, and the effects HIS actions and HIS policies are having on people TODAY, and how they will be affected in the future.  Address that, if you can, without reference to what anyone else did, or what anyone else's poll numbers were at some exact same point in office.

    In all due respect, I won't just let that slide.  It's like the stupid comparisons that people make to mass murderers.  "George W. Bush is worse than Hitler!"  Uh, no. I don't like W eithe but Hitler killed millions.  Equating someone to him minimizes all of that.

    Equating Obama to Bush minimizes the bad done by Bush

    And stressing how bad Bush was minimizes the harm, the suffering, and the erosion of the foundation of this democracy that the current president is causing.

    Deal with what is, for a change; it might open your eyes far enough to see some essential truths that are critical to our future.

    Parent

    Anne, I hope our (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    two posts are considered as Reasond and nuanced observations, and not 'hate Obama' screeds.

    I enjoyed your post, and I agree wholeheartedly with the penultimate paragraph:

    And stressing how bad Bush was minimizes the harm, the suffering, and the erosion of the foundation of this democracy that the current president is causing.


    Parent
    Jeff, I did - as I usually do - enjoy (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    your comment on our past presidents and on where the current one has fallen short; I don't know that I have ever read a comment of yours that I didn't find to be well-reasoned, even if once in a blue moon, I don't agree with everything you write.

    What ABG doesn't seem to appreciate or understand is that no one wanted to be wrong about Obama more than I did, because being wrong would mean he had actually proved himself to be the Democrat we so badly needed.  I wanted him to succeed at the things that matter to me, and instead, I have spent two years watching him move ever rightward, to the point where I truly do not understand how he can be labeled a Democrat.  Or how those who identify as liberals or progressives can reconcile Obama's actions and policies with the things liberals and progressives believe are at the core of that world view.

    Well, I guess we see on a fairly regular basis how ABG reconciles them - he just turns them into something they're not and goes back to dreaming about how his grandchildren will one day marvel at this great president who accomplished so much.  Maybe he envisions his grandchildren as being members of the Republican party, because that's the only way that daydream makes sense to me.

    Oh, well - here's to reason and nuance; there can never be too much of that, eh?


    Parent

    Hear, Hear! (none / 0) (#144)
    by cameoanne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    Great comment.   Totally agree with what you have stated here.  Obama seems like a Republican to me.


    Parent
    reasoned... (none / 0) (#134)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    review only works if you see what you wrote, not what you intended to write.

    Parent
    "Above average" ... Heh (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:47:37 PM EST
    Obama has been an above average president in his first two years.  I'll put his accomplishments up against anyone's.  He can still screw it all up though.

    You mean he could actually get worse?!?!

    He's merely "above average", but you'd "put his accomplishments up against anyone's"?

    BTW - Just curious - what would he have to do (in your mind) to "still screw it all up, though"?

    Parent

    Part of the problem, in my view, (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:44:05 PM EST
    is that some of the electorate confuse Washington, DC with Lake Wobegon, "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."   These politicians work at being seen as the brightest in the room and it too often works. Truth of the matter is that they often are flying by the seat of their pants or pant suits.

    Summers is a good example, the brightest of the bright who is not only proved wrong with regularity but has a 'reverse Midas Touch'.  After all, it is pretty hard to louse up a good job as president of Harvard in so short a time, including losses of up to a $billion in endowment.

    An aspect of the "Deal" overlooked for its potential long term devastation is the payroll tax holiday.  It reduces the tax on the employee share by two percent (6.2 to 4.2 up to $106,400), which costs, for the one year, about $120 billion that is to be re-payed from general revenues and after the year, to be restored to 6.2%.

    This, of course, was one of those good Republican ideas--and with good reason.  Restoration of the tax rate will be seen as a tax increase, and a big one for working people; and use of general revenue funds will, rightly, mean that social security is contributing to the deficit.   It does not now do so.  Moreover, if the tax is not restored, the trust fund will, to the delight of the Catfood Commission, be depleted much faster.  So, we better privatize or eliminate it.  Of course, the Democrats will not stop any legislation for extension in an election year. Our only hope is that the electorate will see through this scheme.

    Parent

    I hope enough (none / 0) (#93)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    legislators see through this scheme.

    Parent
    Honest Answer (none / 0) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    1. Not actually carry on with bringing the troops home.  He's on pace I think to start shutting the wars down.  If he reversed, I'd be disappointed.

    2. Leave the white house without repealing DADT

    There are plenty of other things.  But healthcare for me is huge.  For him to erase the upside of that, his screwups with have to be Bush-like.  

    Parent
    Yeah, ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    Not actually carry on with bringing the troops home.  He's on pace I think to start shutting the wars down.

    Notice all those qualifiers - ("on pace" "to start").  That's called "setting low expectations".

    Bush was great at that, too.

    But healthcare for me is huge.  For him to erase the upside of that, his screwups with have to be Bush-like.

    That's a corollary to low expectations .... impossibly low standards for results.  Although the way he's going, the impossible may just become possible ...

    But then again .... not surprising.

    Parent

    Leave the white house ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54:44 PM EST
    ... without repealing DADT.  I think he's on the path for that, but in that case you're withholding your potential displeasure for at least two years, possibly six.

    Health care for me is huge.  But this POS Health Insurance bill would not have helped my brother.  

    Parent

    Who are you responding to? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    Leaving aside your silly premise (that either: 1) it's unbelievable that Clinton is doing a favor for Obama by pushing this bill or 2) "Clinton isn't nearly the man that many here believe him to be"), it was Masslib that said that they believed Clinton's support was a favor for Obama, not MT.

    What is pretty funny are the lengths that fans of Obama will go to explain his infinite capacity to make lousy decisions and give away the store to Republicans.

    Parent

    Yep, us "fans" are funny (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    Almost as funny as die-hard anti-whatever-he-does opponents. Feisty, I know...but, hey, we're all entitled.

    Parent
    Much funnier, actually (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    "Feisty"?

    Not so much.

    Parent

    Matched only by (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    the infinite ability of those on the further left to ignore his accomplishments.

    Amazing, really.

    Parent

    Good to see you ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    What is pretty funny are the lengths that fans of Obama will go to explain his infinite capacity to make lousy decisions and give away the store to Republicans.

    ABG -

    Matched only by the infinite ability of those on the further left to ignore his accomplishments.

    ... can admit it.

    Parent

    I like Obama (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    a lot.  Think he's doing a good job.  I think he doesn't get enough credit for his accomplishments.  If you feel that way and you like to talk politics, this is what you do and this is what you say.

    Others don't like Obama as much (regardless of whether they did in the past). They think he's doing a bad job. They seem to think that he isn't taking enough heat for his actions.  Because they feel that way, they sound like you.

    The difference between me and you is that I understand where my biases may cloud objectivity.  Doesn't happen often but I am sure it does happen.

    Conversely, the concept that Obama and Clinton may have a weeeeee bit of a point about the way the left has reacted to this and a bunch of other issues is just unpossible to folks like you.

    There is just a lack of perspective and unfortunately, in the same way that Hannity fuels the far right, the left of the web creates a wicked nasty feed back loop that does the same thing on the left.  I think Bill Clinton would have been absolutely destroyed for DADT and a bunch of other things he did if he presided over 2010 america.

    I freaking love the nets and what they've done for progressives, but this is kind of the bad part.

    Parent

    Leaving aside the platitudes ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:14:34 PM EST
    The difference between me and you is that I understand where my biases may cloud objectivity.  Doesn't happen often but I am sure it does happen.

    Oh, yeah .... just "once-in-a-while".

    Like blinking.

    Conversely, the concept that Obama and Clinton may have a weeeeee bit of a point about the way the left has reacted to this and a bunch of other issues is just unpossible to folks like you.

    You don't have the slightest clue about what's "unpossible" to me.  maybe try a little less Dr. Phil.

    There is just a lack of perspective and unfortunately, in the same way that Hannity fuels the far right, the left of the web creates a wicked nasty feed back loop that does the same thing on the left.  I think Bill Clinton would have been absolutely destroyed for DADT and a bunch of other things he did if he presided over 2010 america.

    Yeah, ... imagine that.  The progblogs get Obama elected, then they expect him to live up to his word.  Weird, huh?  I do like the part about how Obama has it soooooooo much tougher than anyone before him .... always a favorite.  BTW - You mean Clinton would've taken flack for DADT in 2010, when the Congress, public and DOD all strongly favor repeal of the ban, as opposed to 1993 when they all opposed it?

    Shocker.

    OTOH - I guess he could have just done a survey and wait for Congress to do something...

    ... like Obama.

    I freaking love the nets and what they've done for progressives, but this is kind of the bad part.

    Yeah ... accountability is strange like that.  It's much easier when you can just make a pretty sales pitch and a bunch of vague (and occasionally not-so-vague) promises while the love is flowing, but when you wake up in the morning and he's long gone with just a $20 bill on the nightstand, people have a tendency to be a little upset.

    Also weird, huh?

    Parent

    The progblogs didn't get Obama elected (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    George W. Bush did.

    Let's keep it real, shall we?

    Parent

    Sure. In fact, I agree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:30:51 PM EST
    The progblogs (and MSM) got Obama the nomination.

    GWB, the progblogs and the tanking economy got him the general.

    Parent

    Have you ever considered (none / 0) (#103)
    by observed on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    quantitative reasoning?

    Parent
    Hey if I were further to the right (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:11:23 PM EST
    and a Republican I would love Obama's accomplishments. He has helped rehabilitate the Republican party and has passed their agenda items and has put the blame for their poor results on the Democratic Party.

    Just wait until he finally "fixes" Social Security. Boy will he prove that he has the ability to dismantle "New Deal" programs where the Republicans have failed.

    Sure hope you don't know any poor folks who do manual labor jobs. They are going to find it real hard to preform their physical tasks until they are seventy but what the hey, Obama is awesome.  

    Parent

    Laughable (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:18:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps this is picky (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    but, Dadler, when you say that the President lost you "a few weeks ago," I could have sworn you meant to say "years." (Based on your historical comments, of course?)

    Parent
    As long as you're keeping track... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    I'm curious what it would take for you to get off the train.  

    Although I could be wrong, I don't think you have ever articulated your line in the sand.  It seems a D after a name is good enough.

    Parent

    Good point, sj (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    You are correct. I do not draw lines in the sand. At least, I haven't since college & Vietnam. Too much has happened since then. Instead, I support the Democrats because the party's positions are closer to mine than Republicans (and, so far, there is not the slightest evidence that a third party would garner enough support to win and make a difference.)

    "Drawing lines" cuts both ways. Why cut myself or hurt myself deliberately? If I'm angry about a political situation (much more frequently, btw, than some here might think), I vent at home or with friends. If I have suggestions to help the party, I make them directly to the party. For me, it is always a matter of moving/inching/step by step forward. My personlity and my work underscores my tendency to compromise in favor of moving forward. Briefly, and generally: I will give to get. That is me; that is my experience. I respect the experience of others; and, I try not to belittle someone with a different take because--ultimately--it doesn't lead to anything.

    Again, I like your comment. It is accurate, non-snarky, straightforward. What I would like to see here is genuine interchange, give & take about issues going forward. Otherwise, to be honest, it gets to be a boring reprise of "how horrible" everything is. (There, I said it.) It may be that a number of us want the same thing. Goodness, we are not the tea party or sympathizers here. Let's stop trying to bash each other and figure out a way that we can disagree on some things and agree on others. I don't know what else to say...except that I would like to see this group build rather than bash those like me who do not fit the fraternity/sorority. (Yea, this was my vent today.)

    Parent

    We agree about this (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:46:32 PM EST
    Why cut myself or hurt myself deliberately?

    And this used to be true about me.

    I support the Democrats because the party's positions are closer to mine

    The trouble is, the Democratic Party is not acting on those positions any longer.  So the first quote is where I'm stuck.  I will not cut or hurt myself deliberately.  I think many of us do want the same things.  And I am, by nature, also willing to incrementally work towards those things I value.  But half a step forward, 4 steps back isn't an increment I can support.

    I get what you are saying about third parties, and I used to agree with that.  But how is a third party to grow if everyone stays put?  I'm actually still a registered Democrat, but I no longer donate money or time and my vote is not a given.  If I can't vote for someone who demonstrably (not just verbally) upholds some of my ideals then it will be withheld.  

    A situation that makes me very, very unhappy.

    Parent

    Thanks for the additional comments, sj (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    I respect your position; and, can mostly understand where you are in terms of politics, the politician, and integrity.

    Only one pushback for now: If you made a list with chart with each national bill that passed and/or up for passage on the left column followed by Democrats and Republicans in separate columns (with check for "yes" or "no" vote)AND compared your "yes" or "no" (or abstain) in the furthest column.... You know that already, I'm sure. Sometimes it helps to refocus on the dry facts of the issues. Then rank the listed issues per your preference in order to inject the important emotional component (even adding different weights, if needed.) I've always found it an interesting exercise; but then, sometimes I talk to myself in the mirror to reconnect the heart & mind.

    A long-ago conversation always steadies me when my heart goes one way and my mind another. That conversation, by fortuitous happenstance, occurred in my freshman college year after a small dinner where the late Saul Alinsky apoke about political movements and personalities. In a short one-on-one, I was able to ask a few questions and, in a response, Alinsky asked what I would feel if those less fortunate/the poor/the needy got even less or had to wait for an uncertain, unexpectedly long time to attain aid or benefits because my position did not allow for bending (and sometimes "losing the battle?) He spoke strongly about continually knowing and moving toward a movement's goal...but, he also impressed upon me the importance of where my personality best fit in that progress.

    What the above reminds me is that we will all diverge a bit on the way. Different strengths, weaknesses. Many different talents. If we are headed the same way, its helpful and invigorating to exchange info about bumps, traps, surprises (positive & negative.) Its not just dreamy; it is thought-provoking and useful for the steps & times ahead.

    Parent

    That's backwards (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by sj on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    Because I don't care about each national bill.  Those only show votes.  I care about particular aspects of society.  If a bill affecting something important to me is never introduced it won't show up on your list.  So as far as I am concerned, I will be doing no bill tracking as such; instead I will look at my priorities.  Copying from another comment of mine:

    I am, in a nutshell, a pro-choice, pro-union, pro-civil liberties, pro-Great Society, pro-corporate regulation, pro-equal rights for all, pro-voting rights for all regardless of criminal history, pro-Social Security, pro-Medicare, pro-regulation, anti-death penalty, pro-safety net which makes me pro-taxes (for me AND thee [if you're above the poverty line] and especially for corporations)  anti-corporate-personhood, pro-single payer medicine, pro-regulation, pro-environment, pro-open borders, dyed in the wool, bleeding heart LIBERAL.   I believe if an individual OR a society CAN do something to help another, they SHOULD to that thing.

    I look at my list and to see what is being helped or hindered.  And as I re-read my own list of my own priorities not one of my issues is being advanced by the Democratic Party.  Tell me again why I should support them.  

    And those are the dry facts of my issues.  If you want to spend your time lining up bills horizontally and members vertically and creating a matrix to show you something that makes you feel better, that's fine.  For me personally, it looks and feels like busy work and is a complete waste of my time.

    Parent

    For the record, sj (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    your description of your humanistic, compassionate belief-system matches mine almost to a t.  My dry & boring list is just that. But, it helps me as a tactical--not goals, not even strategies--methodology.

    I did not expand upon my basic beliefs before talking about tactics. In that context, one of us may be emphasizing the macro and the other homing in on the micro. From your perspective, my checklist approach would be tedious, etc. (and, for me, it is only my own personal monitor when my "feelings" overtake me about a piece of legislation.) Believe me, I always--triple that--ask myself if supporting or opposing controversial legislation ties into my very similar world view. And, my evaluation has allowed me to support or accept most of the legislation (go to WH litany page) as either supportive of those goals or, at least, not in opposition to them.

    Note: I worked for a few years as a strategist and strategic planner. Well, the discipline makes organization easier, sharpens focus and all that, but--yoiks--the tactical and action items components can be a turn-off. As you indicate so directly, the guiding principle has to be one's belief system...knowing it and acting in harmony with it. In the earlier instance--and partly responsive to your previous last sentence about not being too happy about the dilemma many face-- I jumped to a tactical exercise too quickly.

    Parent

    Again, (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by sj on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    your approach ONLY applies to bills under consideration.  If there is no legislation on a societal issue it can NOT be measured.  

    And then there is the poison pill aspect.  Take this fecal piece of a tax compromise, for example.  I support the extension of UI benefits.  I abhor the retention of the Bush tax cuts.  So how do I measure that on your little spread sheet?  I have to give the bill a weight or break aspects of it down into smaller pieces.

    Further, if I measure only what they have done, without taking into account what they could have done, much less what they should have done, I leave out yet another metric that cannot be put into your little columns.

    Frankly, it wouldn't have mattered when you jumped into your tactical exercise.  No matter when you bring it up, it will still be busy work.  

    I work with patterns, not discrete bits of data unrelated other discrete bits of data.  It suits the way my mind works naturally:  puzzles and patterns.

    This pattern is alarming.  Not disheartening, not discouraging.  Alarming.  Red-lights-flashing/Sirens-clanging/people-shouting alarming.  If your priorities are in line with mine, frankly I don't see how you can anesthetize yourself with analyses how Senator/Representative so-and-so voted on whatsit bill.  

    Analyze the aggregate effects.

    My priorities are far from dry & boring to me.  Your tactics, on the other hand are for me, not only dry and boring, but misleading and provide false and incomplete data.  But it sure explains why you draw no lines in the sand.

    So, although I know you mean well, I would ask that you never make that recommendation to me again, as you have in the past.  The next time I'll be insulted.  Thank you.

    Parent

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sj on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    And I mean this kindly:

    sometimes I talk to myself in the mirror to reconnect the heart & mind.

    I think that's one of the saddest things I've heard in a while.  You might want to ponder why that's necessary.

    Parent

    Oh, come on now (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    I know myself as well as you know yourself. I did not pounce on your statement about how you feel; and, I expect similar respect. If you are looking for fighting openings and put downs, let me suggest that you do not "mean this kindly." But, to respond: One addresses oneself in a mirror (in a diary, on a run or a hike in the mountains, in many venues when one has the courage to confront purported systems from time to time. That is all that is meant. You dishonor my intent to play at it further.

    I did make a mistake in the assumption that there could be a genuine exchange of ideas, thoughts, process, etc. without what clearly must be taken as put-downs. I will not repeat that mistaken assumption in future; a good learning experience for me.

    My experiences in the political realm have been extensive. Ice or aloofness does not run in my veins. Far from it. My comments merely suggested that there are tactical matters to consider as you move to accomplishing broader goals. That--ta da--necessarily involves the mundane matter of legislation, laws, and other assorted steps that contribute to the ultimate goal. Again, we may be looking at two different aspects; and, I'll choose to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.  It is important--actually, it is essential--to dream, to envision a better world. It is just as essential (at some point) to figure out as a society what precise steps and laws promote what we want to see promoted

    Parent

    One may address oneself in the mirror (none / 0) (#148)
    by sj on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 12:21:09 AM EST
    As I do myself.  In my "reflection", I see things that satisfy me about myself and my world and things that don't.  But I don't have to spend time reflecting to attach my mind to my heart.

    See what you will in my words.  They were meant kindly.  If you consider authenticity to be immaterial to a discussion then I suppose you were mistaken to believe that there could be an exchange of ideas.

    Whatever.  If it pleases you more I'll go back to skipping your comments.  

    Parent

    okay--semi-truce (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    My "mirror comment" simply meant what you said about taking a reflective look from time to time. I think that you misread my intent about heart/mind (meaning: there are many times when compassion etc. lead one way, but the analytical mind says to "hold on"--a contradiction common to most of us); but then, I may have reacted too strongly in the same vein to your comment.

    Parent
    I know they're waiting for the lending to (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by esmense on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:53:03 PM EST
    come back -- but more lending is not a solution to our problems. We've been papering over the hallowing out of our economy with credit fiddles for decades now. And every credit boom has ended in a bust that's left us worse off than when we started.

    A gusher of business and consumer credit fueled the false prosperity of the go go 80s -- but by the end of the decade both businesses and consumers were drowning in high interest debt and we went into recession. In December of 1989 the ad agency I worked for (one of Money Magazines hot picks just two years before), along with thousands of other business small and large, went under not because it wasn't attracting business, but because it wasn't possible to attract enough business to pay off the absurd amount of debt it had acquired. A year later the national retailer who I went to work for after the agency closed its doors, declared bankruptcy for the exactly the same reason - too much debt. I became marketing director at an innovative new business that was tearing up the market in terms of sales -- but in spite of its undeniable sales and marketing success it was a goner in less than a year and a half -- too much high interest debt. This was "the economy, stupid" that brought Clinton into office. How did we get out of it? For the most part, we just refinanced ourselves out of it with lower interest rates. Consumers were able to refinance their homes and start accumulating large amounts of debt again, fueling another go go debt dependent decade. When that bubble crashed, once again, looked to an easy credit and refinancing -- this time supported by an artificially inflated housing market and to a great degree, outright fraud.

    As the 80s and 90s demonstrate, making lots of credit, and easy credit, available to businesses in a market where consumer demand doesn't justify taking on such debt, or to consumers whose incomes make repayment difficult or impossible, is not anything other than a temporary fix. With long range bad consequences. But, when you have an unregulated financial system, in which the government has basically decided to take on the risk that should belong to the banks, of course, it does make it possible for the big players in the financial industry to make a hell of a lot of money in the short term.

    But the rest of us are still stuck in the reality of a dwindling job market, stagnant and declining wages, increasing poverty, and a decimated, declining consumer market in which, for the last 30 years or so, demand has been artificially stimulated by risky credit rather than real growth.  

    Parent

    re credit for biz, on the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by DFLer on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    there was a story in the Star Tribune business pages a few months ago about  medical device company in MN. They had a great product. They had orders. They had back orders. They were unable to expand their production to meet the demands because they could not get a biz loan from the banks. That seems just stupid to me.

    I'll look for the link to the article. In the meantime, you'll just have to trust me on this story, until I verify!

    Parent

    I don't doubt you are right (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by esmense on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    And certainly medical devices ARE an area of growth (in fact, I think the industry did a successful job of lobbying for their interests during the health care debate). I didn't mean to suggest that business lending isn't important -- only to make the point that DEMAND is the vital ingredient in recovery. And in large parts of this economy there is simply inadequate demand.

    When there is demand and you can't get credit, as in this case, the banks shouldn't have to be encouraged, by the government, to lend. They, like the business they are lending to, are going to profit from that demand.

    Cases like this make me wonder if our financial institutions, which have become even more extremely consolidated since the collapse, with fewer and fewer genuinely local institutions serving their local business communnities, haven't just decided that they have bigger fish to fry (bigger sources of profit) outside of the domestic economy. Rats with no more interest in the ship.

    Parent

    Of course that's what has happened... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    Wall Street had a banner year this year and corporate profits are through the roof primarily from gains in foreign markets.

    Parent
    To put it perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SOS on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    a bit indelicately, our sh*t is falling apart.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by SOS on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    our nation is on the verge of falling apart socially, economically and politically.

    Don't ya think?

    I think the message... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    ...to almost all of us from this corporate oligarchy/gov't is "F.U., go stimulate yourself."

    true (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    I think the message to almost all of us from this corporate oligarchy/gov't is "F.U., go stimulate yourself."

    w/out a lubricant

    Parent

    austerity demands it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 12:35:19 PM EST
     

    Parent
    On Obama's approach to fiscal matters: (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by the capstan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    The Greenville News had some comments from a local fellow about Obama.  Roger Owens wrote that "the president apparently believes to his core that conciliation is better than confrontation."  He added that he is reminded of the tale of a lion which chased a man until the man collapsed in prayer.  Whereupon the lion stopped, knelt, and assumed a prayerful position.  Said the man, "I am relieved that you are also praying."  Replied the lion, "I do not know what you are doing, but I am saying grace!"

    "While the president continues to conciliate and compormise, the Republicans are saying grace," Mr. Owens concludes.

    Some of you may have heard of Mr. Owens: he was the first president of Save Our Sons.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    Another group is now fighting the tax deal - the Tea Party, except they have a problem with the "death tax" portion.

    Even as it nears a critical vote in Congress today, the compromise tax deal worked out by President Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill has some new enemies.

    Conservatives.

    Last week, the agreement was assailed by liberals who accused the president of giving away the store by agreeing to a temporary extension of tax breaks and reductions in the estate tax, both of which will benefit the wealthy.

    But with a critical procedural vote scheduled for Monday afternoon in the Senate, some Tea Party activists and other conservative pundits are attacking it from the other side.

    A group called the Tea Party Patriots is circulating a petition accusing Republican lawmakers of cutting a bad backroom deal with the president that violates the principles that Tea Party candidates campaigned on in the midterm elections.

    "'The Deal' revives the death tax, an immoral `vampire tax' that sucks the blood from the dead, ruins family businesses and double taxes savings that were accumulated over a lifetime," the petition says. "`The Deal' spends billions and billions of dollars that the country does not have in order to prevent a tax hike that the country voted against."

    Strange bedfellows, indeed.

    There needs to be pushback against (none / 0) (#97)
    by Raskolnikov on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    the idea that tax cuts don't contribute to the deficit.  It's obviously the right wing talking point du-jour judging by this quote: "`The Deal' spends billions and billions of dollars that the country does not have in order to prevent a tax hike that the country voted against."

    Of course, who is there to pushback?  Us blowhards on the blogs?  The one or two liberals who work for the New York Times?  

    It's funny, I've always been pretty cynical about things, but it wasn't until 'The Deal' and the Julian Assange fiasco that I started to believe myself.

    Parent

    I'm wondering where $$$$ are coming from (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    We will increase our debt. Does anyone remember REAGAN reducing the maximum tax rate? The highest income earners recieved the benefits. The budget deficit and federal debt increased... we went from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor.

    The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Not much of the rich let the money trickle down to the poor. There is that GREED factor that gets in the way.

    We will have a double dip recession. History tells the tell!

    Krugman's somewhat constrained (none / 0) (#2)
    by TJBuff on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:29:40 AM EST
    against calling Obama and the Dems out-and-out liars.

    Obama Itching to fight Republicans - next year (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    USA Today:

    As fellow Democrats accuse him of caving in to Republicans on the tax cut deal, President Obama is repeatedly promising them that he will fight the GOP aggressively when it takes over the U.S. House and adds senators next month.

    "I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues," Obama said last week.



    Oh great... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by masslib on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:25:55 AM EST
    Right after we lose the House.  Wonderful.  Why the heck didn't he campaign for unemployment benefits and an end to the Bush tax cuts exclusively for the wealthiest Americans in Maine before the elections?  Bush did that sort of thing all the time.  

    Parent
    Why the heck wasn't he engaging (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    the American population in a discussion and debate about where we were going and who was going to take us where months and months ago?  Republicans are now upset that he said they were holding the average American people hostage.  Gee, I wonder why they are upset about that....it couldn't be because of their own ringing phones?  This President is silent and backroom sneaky though, not a breeding ground for trust and has breed everything but trust.  If he wants the damned votes for things truly liberal at this point to be there though, there will have to be a debate where people learn about everything on the table, what is going on, and how it is going to affect all of us.  The "debate" about HCR seems to be what has pissed him off the most.  This is a democracy fool!  Grow up!

    Parent
    A) Because he has no clue; (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    B) Because his advisors are supply-siders.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    His advisors are supply siders and I suppose that as long as he is our President his advisors will remain supply siders.

    Parent
    His advisors ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    ... were chosen as a reflection of himself.  I know this doesn't apply to you, MT, but people need to stop saying he's getting bad advice and realize that the policies he's getting are the policies he wants.

    Parent
    my take (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    is that like most Americans he is economically incompetent & does not know the difference between good & terrible economic advice

    so he has decided to maintain the status quo & defer to authority - Geithner & company - b/c he does not have the competence & imagination to challenge their thinking & figures he can slide by if he appears to avoid rocking the boat - getting rid of tax criminal Geithner w/b too much "change" i guess

    Parent

    "economic competence" (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    That is an interesting term...in the eye of the beholder, I'd guess. For me, when looking for a macro-level economic approach, I tend to favor P. Krugman. He is more than a good economist (even if one doesn't include the powerful testament of a Nobel prize.) So, when he takes a different position than I would like, my own approach is not to say "He is wrong because he doesn't agree with me."

    In a similar vein, I believe there is a lot of evidence that former President Clinton has been very adept at understanding the body politic and that, judging by the real economic stats during his presidency, that he was a fairly good political leader & President. So, when he takes a different position than I would initially take, my inclination is not to say "He is wrong because he doesn't agree with me."

    And so on....

    Parent

    you do understand (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    that i am talking about President Obama, not President Clinton, who was brought in to apply lipstick to a pig?

    Parent
    And, I'm sure that you understand (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    my point about how we might define "economic competence."

    Parent
    sure (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    just as i understand that i voted for a Democratic president but all i got was the GOP's mid-1990s health care (sic) plan & George W. Bush's tax cuts as far as the eye can see

    Parent
    The eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    Amazing, I suppose, that I would interpret the past two years differently. But...that's diversity for you. (Seriously.)

    Parent
    actually i am not amazed (none / 0) (#113)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:57:19 PM EST
    that our interpretations differ

    not at all, because i don't share the view from Planet Awebama

    you however seem to have made a personal project today of dismissing my interpretation

    w'ever

    Parent

    No personal project (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:42:49 PM EST
    I don't take this personally, nor should you. 'Just stating my observations, as you state yours. Both valid views to be sure.

    Parent
    That the advice is bad doesn't mean (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    that it can't be the advice Obama was looking for; in fact, I think it's silly to think that he would surround himself with advisors who didn't share his general view on this and other policies.

    And, as I recall, I think there were more than a few people who looked at his advisory board when he was Candidate Obama, and felt the need to reach for the Maalox because of what it likely meant for the future.

    And here we are...

    At some point, no matter how one likes to be seen as open to "all" ideas and willing to compromise in the spirit of working together, sooner or later, one's essential self, one's world view, one's philosophy of life, comes to the fore and cannot be escaped.

    Such is where things are with Obama. Two years in, we see over and over again examples of where he's most comfortable and what he wants; that almost none of it is congruent with what most traditional Democrats want or believe means, I think, that it's time to accept that he isn't going to suddenly be something he just isn't and isn't likely to ever be.

    How do we overcome the immovable object that Obama seems to be?  Well, I had - once upon a time - held out hope that the Congress would push back, would assert itself, would school Obama more than a little bit on what the people wanted and needed.

    But, while we hear noise out of the House, we never see them take it all the way to a showdown; instead we get the shrug of the shoulder, the grim-faced "we tried," and in the end, it's pretty much complete capitulation.

    Changing that is the key.  Working around Obama is essential.

    I just don't see much chance that such a thing will happen.

    Parent

    I didn't mean to give him such a pass (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    He is surrounded by the advisors he chose.  And I don't expect him to ever pick anyone who isn't a full out supply sider.  I have come to believe that he will die first or be visited by an angel or abducted by aliens.

    His advisors have been considered "geniuses" and "top shelf" long before he employed them though.  Obama hasn't singularly enabled their self serving all about us type of economics.

    Unfortunately when you listen to Clinton speak, he understands that we must find ways to lend again to Main Street but he missed the fricken train too on grasping how NOT powerful supply side economics is.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    but I treated that statement as comedic relief and started laughing. He sounds like they guy that constnatly has his lunch money stolen by bullies and swears the next time he going to fight.

    Parent
    I heard on BBC radio this morning (none / 0) (#17)
    by TJBuff on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    Berlusconi told Italians that if they force an election on him the economy gets it.  Sound familiar?

    BTD, here's Hoyer resurrecting (none / 0) (#18)
    by masslib on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    the Catfood Commission today.

    LINK

    Naive of Krugman not to understand that massive spending would still be in vouge.  

    Poll (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    Put aside the effects for a second. Obama has to feel somewhat vindicated by this poll:

    But put all four items together, and 69 percent of all Americans support the package. Large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike favor the agreement, which has drawn stiff opposition from some Democrats in the House. In the poll, 69 percent of liberal Democrats support the agreement, which Obama has called a framework for legislation.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews

    If the economy turns around, he's going to look good.  If it doesn't he was going to lose anyway.

    Just from a political perspective, smart move.  People argue that Obama has lost 2012 because of this but the reality to match that sentiment.  It may have given him his best chance to win.

    Now back to discussions of the actual impact of the proposal . . . I have seen a lot of information that says the stimulative aspects could be real and substantial.  I don't really believe either side at this point. No one knows.

    49 of the 69% of the support is (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    somewhat, with only 20% being strongly. Bless your heart for trying though . . .

    Parent
    It was a great try actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    If we are going to ignore "somewhat" on both the opposition and support side, 20% support and 12% oppose.

    Let me put this to you using your way of thinking: only 12% of the country disagrees with the proposal as strongly as you do.

    Only 29% opposes at all.  

    The rest of us support it to one degree or another.

    Maybe you should try harder.

    Parent

    I don't think I said how strongly (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    I didn't support it. I actually strongly support the UI extension . . .

    Supporting it to one degree or another (especially when 49% are that 'one degree or another') won't hold over 2 yrs when the sh*t really hits the fan in the form of reality . . . Basically, Obama only has 20% strong support on this. Not good. We also didn't get to see some of the first questions or the last set. Seems rather cherry picked to me. Works well for trying to send a media message though . . .

    Parent

    He has 20% support (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    now, when the economy (and his support) are at their lowest.  If the economy recovers, your point only makes sense if Obama becomes less popular as a result.

    That's not how this works.  Either the approval numbers increase or the economy is screwed anyway and it doesn't matter.

    Parent

    If you have no idea,what's (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    your point?

    Parent
    The Point (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    is that in this uncertain time, those who boldly state that they know what the effect of any stimulus proposal is are not to be completely trusted.  Krugman, Obama, conservatives, all of them.

    Whenever someone says "this is unprecedented and any prediction could be completely wrong, but I think . . ." I tend to listen to that more closely.  This economic environment is uniquely uncertain and it's time people admit that instead of pretending that their way is the one and only correct way.

    Parent

    Why smart people can't seem to realize this (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    those who boldly state that they know what the effect of any stimulus proposal is are not to be completely trusted

    if $hit was so easy why wouldn't all our problems be solved already?  Surely it's not just because republicans have opposed some legislation?  I mean, didn't Dems did have control before?

    Parent

    Poll: Obama's losing support; Romney would beat (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    him:


    President Barack Obama's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he'd lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

    Overall, just 42 percent of registered voters approve of how he's doing his job, while 50 percent disapprove.



    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    Economy stinks.

    If the economy stinks, Obama will lose.  Doesn't matter what he does otherwise.

    Parent

    true (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    Obama should have proposed a larger stimulus based on spending and job creation, not so much on tax cuts

    & then he should have gone to the mat for it when he had the political capital to do so

    he didn't

    he failed us & possibly himself

    Parent

    Based on what I see on the news, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    and read in the newspapers, it doesn't surprise me that there's support for the deal; people really are not being told enough - as usual - and many will have a rude awakening when - as we all know it will - the other shoe drops.

    There's something else about your comment that bothers me, and that is that somehow, this is all about Obama: about making him look good so he can be re-elected - even if this is the wrong policy.

    Why, pray tell, would we want to keep in office someone who isn't pushing the right policy?  Because some registered Republican might be able to go Obama one better - or worse - on conservative initiatives?

    When have tax cuts stimulated the economy, or created jobs?  When has slashing government spending in difficult economic times worked to life the economy?  Do some reading about what's going on in Ireland and England and Greece if you want to know what happens when the government goes all-in on austerity programs.  It isn't pretty.

    I want the president to push the best policy that's right for the country, for the 98% of us who pretty much have no voice anymore, not the best policy that will get him re-elected.

    I don't give a rat's a$$ about Obama's political fortunes; I care about our economic future.  I don't give a rat's a$$ about Obama's legacy, about his signature accomplishments: I care about whether the policies of the people in charge can help make it possible for me - and everyone else - to even have a legacy.

    I don't care about propping him up, I care about keeping my own head above water.

    Parent

    You know why they support it? (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    All most people know (or think, really) is they are getting a tax cut after the new year.  It's not true of course - for most, things will remain the same (and for some lower income folks, taxes will actually go up).

    That's it.

    Parent

    You know why else? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    Because of the extension of unemployment compensation benefits. In fact, I would submit that for many people (about 10% of the population) that is the greater concern.

    Parent
    I agree it was a politically motivated (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    deal that will make him more popular. Problem is that it is the wrong policy. He should be leading people to the right policy, not following them off the cliff.

    Parent
    69% support? Big woo (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sj on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    I "somewhat support" it myself. In all the discussion about the tax cuts for the next two years or permanently, please remember that the R's "conceded" ONE year of UI benefits.  

    Boy, I can hardly wait to see what the R's get next year.  I expect they'll be selecting from a menu provided by the Catfood Commission.

    Parent

    Washington Post Poll (none / 0) (#115)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:32:59 PM EST
    For some reason WP/ABC only released answers to questions 14 thru 18. They are holding back 1-13 and 19-36 for future release.

    Hmmm.....they would not try to manipulate those results would they?  

    Parent

    And the article writes it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:19:45 PM EST
    that 69% approve. Well, I guess that's true, but it would have been more accurate to say 49% somewhat approve and 20% strongly approve. I'm guessing the somewhat number upped when the UI extension along with tax cuts to the middle and lower was included in the package. I'm not sure how many polled understand the payroll tax "holiday" and it's intended consequences.

    Parent
    Two votes short of cloture (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    on Tax cut bill in Senate right now.

    The vote is being held open--because of bad weather.  The vote is 58-6, or some very low number in opposition....Feingold and Gillibrand voting no.

    Landrieu just voted Aye--whatever (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    So much for her support of the mini-filibuster on Friday....

    Parent
    maybe Krugman assumes (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    that federal spending was gonna be "bludgeoned" either way.  That it was gonna happen with or without the tax cuts as long as republicans control the house.

    So the tax cut deal is "take what you can get" stimulus.

    Personally, I don't know that it's worth it.  For me the big "x" factor is 2012.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable about this if Obama would say, unequivically, that he will not pass this extension in 2012 - if he is even elected.

    That hasn't happened and I don't know that it will.

    WHy (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:36:04 PM EST
    would you bleieve him even if he said that? He's been saying for quite a while that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should expire and he extended them. I think this is the last straw of any crediblity Obama had which wasn't much to begin with.

    Parent
    didn't say I would (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    but don't you think silence is even more conspicuous?

    Yea, it bothers me that he won't even bring it up.  I see that as particularly ominous.

    Parent

    You certainly (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    have a point there but even if he did say it everybody would think that he'd probably go back on it anyway. I don't think Obama has even said the word veto ever and I fully expect him to just sign everything that the GOP hands him for the next two years.

    Parent
    Krugman is a great economist (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    Who is a very poor political strategist.  I guess I can't have everything all the time, but at this time it is critical that those who play politics understand the current economic climate and those who play economics understand the current political climate.  Really horrible things can happen when any one player is granted too much instant credibility because of their expertise in one area.

    The Deal Will Lead To Less Fiscal Stimulus | 152 comments (152 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment