The Norquist Strategy: The Spending:Cuts

Via mcjoan, here it comes:

[T]he larger spending debate [was kicked] into the new year, when Republicans will control the House and have more Senate seats. It would also start the bargaining between congressional Republicans and the White House at a lower funding level than the now-defunct Democratic plan.

(Emphasis supplied.) Feel the stimulus! The Deal was a terrible mistake.

< Clinton Reversed GOP Tax Policy, Obama Did Not | Oregon Sting Suspect's Lawyers Seek Muzzle on Eric Holder >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But Obama's itching for a fight (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    He just didn't elaborate on whom his actual opponent would be.  But my hunch is he'll climb in the ring against the poor, the elderly and the few real Dems left.  I'll say this about Clinton, he did live on welfare for awhile, and it certainly gave him at least a smidgen of FIGHTING concern for the least among us -- even if he didn't nearly live up to his promise either.

    Clinton knew this: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    the best welfare program is a job.

    Leaving him free to shred welfare as we knew it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    Welfare 'as we knew it' (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:29:03 PM EST
    needed reform...and got it.  People got education, job-training, childcare, transportation, etc. etc. and
    Clinton's tax policy created millions and millions of jobs and many poor and hopeless people moved into the workforce...many into the middle class for the first time.  

    Welfare to work worked for millions of poor people (especially the younger ones) and the Democrats never again had 'welfare queens' hung around their necks every election.  If you don't think that made a difference, you should have been trying to run D campaigns in the 70s and 80s.


    I helped produce a film (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    ... critical of the '08 Dem caucuses, and one of our interviewees is a former co-worker of Obama's. She's got solid cred since she was on MLK's staff, and has spent her retirement on anti-recidivism programs in the Chi inner-city.

    We included footage of her accounts of OFA's brutal style of politics seen at some polling places, but had to omit her anecdotes about working with Obama. They were just too hard for most people to believe, and too incendiary, for the time. We'll, they'd play a lot different now. One wrenching story is of a visit to jail when a kid asked Obama for help with his younger siblings who were left unsupervised, hungry, without heat. Obama, the witness says, launched into the kid with a lecture about personal responsibility worthy of Rush Limbaugh.

    The dude's record in office on economic matters does not contradict the story.

    Odd guy. He seems only to attack people you'd think he'd support. If only he'd put that energy into going after Republicans.

    And the unemployment rate is? And his reaction is?

    I think Obama had a clear-eyed view of The Deal, and conclude that he weighed its inevitable negative consequences.


    clear-eyed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    I think thats right.  right that is what he thought I mean.  and possibly right.  at least for him.

    time will tell.


    He doesn't want to be stereotyped as a Dem who (none / 0) (#25)
    by jawbone on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:47:23 PM EST
    cares about those less fortunate. The better to to be a center right bipartisan DINO.

    A mistake for whom? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BDB on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    The American people?  Certainly.

    But I don't think Obama or the rest our elite cares much for the American people.  They care about preserving American hegemony and about saving the rich.  

    Obama has been signaling since 2008 that he wanted to "fix" (re gut) Social Security.  He named the Catfood Commission by executive order and "the Deal" makes it more likely that the commission's recommendations will be enacted, which is what Obama and the rest of the elite (Democrats and Republicans) want.  So, in that sense, it was not a terrible mistake.  

    The terrible mistake is to believe that Obama and the Dems care any more about average Americans than the GOP does.  They don't.  

    Right! (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    I think back to major points in Obama's record that said what his administration would be.

    His meme that SS was a problem was one moment I've been overlooking. It was lost in the cloud of dust.

    I have been pointing to three things that told us what Obama stood for: Harry and Louise, his campaign economic team, and of course, "Tone, Truth...." The SS-needs-to-be-fixed thing, so close on the heels of There Is No Crisis put up in neon that he'd go after it, more than just the neo-liberal leanings of his economists.


    I sure hope Biden was wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    as usual, when he said that the stimulative effects of The Deal were necessary to thwart a second dip to the recession.

    He's wrong (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    If we are on the verge of a double dip, and I think we are since housing numbers are not improving,  those meager stimulus efforts are not going to prevent it. If he really thinks we need another stimulus he should push for another stimulus.

    Precisely (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    The thing that should terrify policy makers is the record size of the shadow housing inventory, real estate that has been seized by lenders, but is not yet on the market.

    All this blather about the angels on the head of the stimulative SS tax cut is distraction.

    The economy is in for a long slog, and is not being helped by planned GOP austerity, or by co-dependent enablers like Biden.


    Yep. I do my own inventory walking (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    around my neighborhood every morning. The number of foreclosure notices has not decreased - none of the houses are selling at auctions. These are nice houses too. I suspect the banks have not set the floor price low enough, and for that I guess I should be grateful.

    I have a lot of experience (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    investing in and refurbing foreclosures. My view through the knot hole is that banks have largely unloaded the low-end older and starter homes, and have hung on to high end stuff. In my local market, the rush of 4/2 and smaller foreclosures has reduced to a trickle, but the expensive foreclosures are being held back. The ongoing gossip in the local real estate industry is about when the luxury houses are finally going to be listed.

    The banks are clearly praying for a rebound with rising prices that can quickly absorb the inventory. More realistically, the big guys know that if they unload a few houses each in various expensive neighborhoods, they'll crash the high-end market and be forced to take huge losses they haven't yet come clean about.

    If they're smart, they'll trickle the inventory onto the MLS slowly enough to prevent huge losses, but when have they been smart? Besides, it's probably not even possible.


    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    seems to make sense. It is not a high end neighborhood by any stretch, but it was a tad above median price when I bought, and I think it still is- albeit at a much lower median price!

    The housing stuff is confusing (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    where's the plan?  Dem and Republican alike are struggling to make payments on their homes and stave off foreclosure.  It's a middle class issue and a clear winner to me...what am I missing?

    Oh liburro, you are missing the idea (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    that people who are struggling to keep their homes don't really deserve to have a home anyway. moral hazard, you know.

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    I forgot about the perilous dangers of helping people.

    (I can't figure out whether they're trying to please the Beltway or prevent people who are successfully paying for their homes from kicking and screaming.  I also think to make a big change they'd have to convince people there is a crisis...and they seem to think it's better if people believe there's not).


    All of that (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    They have completely lost the ability to convince people that helping the struggling really helps all. It is like a lost language.

    Terribel mistake and obvious too (none / 0) (#12)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    provides credence now to those wanting to undermine SS by making it dependent on general funding

    forces Dems to increase their base's taxes going into an election year (reinstating the 2% SS tax),

    worsens the deficit providing more support to the fat cat fat asses like Gov Christie to cut spending

    I could go on, the ramifications of this are legion and knowable now.  The best you can say for Obama is he is stupid and got taken on this deal.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    The best you can say for Obama is he is stupid and got taken on this deal.

    that is the best you can say

    it's terrifying to watch his diehard supporters cover their ears and turn a blind eye to all of this


    And if he's stupid (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    Why does he still have a job?

    You should be leading the charge to impeach him as he cannot handle the job responsibilites.


    in fairness (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    what we should probably say is that in this case, in terms of process & likely outcomes, there is not a dime's worth of difference between stupidity & incompetence

    Mistakes (none / 0) (#17)
    by pluege2 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    The Deal was a terrible mistake.

    obama was a terrible mistake. No obama, no deal; no undermining all manner of progressive achievement in the US.

    Yep (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    nominating Obama was one of the biggest mistakes the Dem party has ever made. This is even worse than Dukakis because losing would be better than having Obama be part of the destruction of the country.

    Running Obama for prez as a Dem was A Big Terrible (none / 0) (#26)
    by jawbone on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48:47 PM EST

    No question about that, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:16:36 AM EST
    it does invoke another question: how do we fix it?

    We have two more years of this - one of which will involve being inundated with campaign rhetoric about how awesomely wonderful Obama is and how much he's accomplished for the world - I'm not sure I'll be able to stand it.