home

When The President Matters

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 08:36:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Krugman notes an important development out of the EPA on mercury and restates this important point:

The point that strikes me most, however, is that this shows that it matters who holds the White House. You can complain about Obama’s lack of a strong progressive agenda, which I sometimes do, or wonder what good it is to hold the White House when the other side blocks every attempt to do good through legislation. But mercury regulation would not have happened if John McCain were president.

Elections have consequences, and this is one delayed consequence of 2008 that will make a big difference.

This is not a plea to give Obama a free pass, quite the opposite (I think the larger problem is defenders of the President not seeing that criticism of specific policy need not imply lack of support for reelection). Criticism is necessary but the full picture must be kept in mind.

Speaking for me only

< Suck On This, Part 2 | The Complicated Travails of Cameron Douglas >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When The President Matters | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As long as the full picture is kept in mind (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Romberry on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    Couldn't agree more. And this bit of news is a bright spot in an otherwise dark and dismal scene. That's all it is.

    Things are looking up (none / 0) (#4)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    Very good unemployment news keeps coming in.  There are many reasons to think that 2012 will be a good year for the country.

    Parent
    The country will not be the worry (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    for those who think politically, as I know that you do.

    I saw a report (wish I had saved it to link for you) on unemployment rates in the swing states.  Those are your worry, and they are not doing as well as the country.

    I do wonder why special funding, programs, etc., have not been targeted to those states by Obama, the wise political thing to do (see: FDR).  But from what I can see, the reason may be that many have GOP governors.  Petty politics confounding presidential-campaign politics?

    Parent

    Towanda (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    You are going to try to paint me (and others) into a box because politics (in good and bad times) is a hobby.  I am a political junkie.  I follow poll numbers like others follow box scores.

    But the accusation that we care nothing about the policy because we find the politics fascinating is completely unsupportable and a cheap shot to boot.

    You can care about both and I (and most others) do.

    I hate that I have to say that every few days, but I just can't let you make those kinds of accusations without responding.

    Parent

    Or, maybe not so optimistic... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    From the NYT this morning:

    In recent weeks, a broad range of data -- like reports on new residential construction and small business confidence -- have beaten analysts' expectations. Initial claims for jobless benefits, often an early indicator of where the labor market is headed, have dropped to their lowest level since May 2008. And prominent economics groups say the economy is growing three to four times as quickly as it was early in the year, at an annual pace of about 3.7 percent.

    But the good news also comes with a significant caveat. Many forecasters say the recent uptick probably does not represent the long-awaited start to a strong, sustainable recovery. Much of the current strength is caused by temporary factors. And economists expect growth to slow in the first half of 2012 to an annual pace of about 1.5 to 2 percent.

    [snip]

    There are two reasons for the renewed pessimism. First, economists say that temporary trends increased growth in the fourth quarter and may not continue into next year. Second, the economy faces significant headwinds in 2012: some from Europe's long-lingering sovereign debt crisis, and some from domestic cutbacks beyond the control of President Obama, whose campaign would like to point to a brightening economic picture, not a darkening one. Even the Federal Reserve is predicting that the unemployment rate will remain around 8.6 percent by the time voters go to the polls in November.

    The fourth quarter benefited, for instance, from wholesalers restocking inventories of goods like petroleum, paper and cars, giving a jolt to growth.

    "We had lean inventories, so those required additional production to satisfy demand," said Gregory Daco of IHS Global Insight. "But once inventories are restocked, there is no need to restock them anymore. That means there's going to be less production," he said.

    We'll see what happens with the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits, and we'll also see whether the Austerity Train keeps rolling on, leading to further cuts in spending; as the article mentions, Obama wants to be able to have better economic conditions as we head into the next election, but I think we have to be mindful of Obama's tendency to cater to the fiscal conservatives (probably because he is one, himself), whose policies do not lend themselves to growth.

    Understand that I'm not saying the economy won't proceed at the current rate of growth, or that I hope it won't, just that the snapshot of this fourth quarter is just that - a snapshot.

    Parent

    Payroll Tax Cut (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    Watching the House Republicans is evidence that it is not really that often about taxes or the economy for conservatives.

    If it were truly about taxes, the House would pass the tax cut already.  And the newfound insistence that the payroll tax cut has to be paid for?   So much for tax cuts paying for themselves, and so much for Supply Siderism, and so much for "dynamic scoring."

    Underneath it all, it is still about cultural issues.....This is what the House Republican are trying to leverage, and they are willing to risk the economy and their own jobs for it.

    The Dems get rolled constantly because they think it is a straight up concern over the economy that drives conservatives.  It isn't.

    Parent

    what drives the rightwingers in Congress (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    is anything that will deny Obama a second term

    that's it

    Parent

    Obama and the Dems (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    are as we speak not catering to the conservatives.

    It is odd that you mention the payroll tax cut and the drama playing out about that and simultaneously assert that the Dems will cave on everything.

    They are doing, right now, as we speak, what you are saying they would not do.

    That seems a little unfair.

    In any event, I hope that the economists are wrong.  They have been wrong before.  We are in agreement on that wish, correct?

    Parent

    Stop putting words in my mouth. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    Please point out to me where I asserted that the Dems would cave on everything.  Oh, right...I didn't do that.

    The NYT article itself mentions the looming issue of the payroll tax cut and expiration of  unemployment benefits for those beyond 26 weeks as being things that have the potential to depress growth if not extended.  I made no mention of the negotiations on that issue, limiting comment on that to, "(W)e'll see what happens with the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits."

    My additional concern, which I clearly stated, is whether the push to austerity continues, and whether, as Obama moves closer to November, he  caters to fiscal conservatives.

    Given the concessions, compromises, and proliferation of Obama-generated ideas for deficit reduction that are antithetical to growth, that is a legitimate concern going forward.  And going forward, in case you have forgotten, is where we will find out whether the uptick in growth will continue - or not.

    I don't know what planet you came from, but here, being "mindful" does not equate to an assertion of anything one way or another.

    Good God, ABG, either read more slowly so you can be sure you understand what people are saying, or preface all your comments with "the views of others represented here may not bear any resemblance to the views actually expressed by others; liberties may have been taken in order to bolster my argument."

    This habit of yours is old and exceedingly tiresome.

    Parent

    Here is the quote Anne (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    "I think we have to be mindful of Obama's tendency to cater to the fiscal conservatives (probably because he is one, himself), whose policies do not lend themselves to growth."

    Obama is not, as we speak, catering to fiscal conservatives at the same time that you are accusing him of catering to fiscal conservatives.

    Reality: In 2012 any catering or caving or conceding or whatever that you think Obama would do would be unwise for him politically because of the economy.  So if you believe that Obama is only concerned with his political futures and not the country (which you have said before) then you believe that he will do what it takes to drop the unemployment number short term.  Your own argument indicates that massive austerity measures effective in 2012 would be unwise.  

    Assuming that Obama is the Closet Conservative that you say he is, he will likely (1) invokve massive draconian austerity measures in 2012 and (2) have them all take effect after 2012.

    Personally, I think all of this is hogwash.  The closer to the election we get, the less attractive social security and medicare arguments become and we will gradually see Obama make increasingly liberal statements and actions.  That makes far more sense than what you propose.

    Parent

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    Or just doing what you always do - cherrypicking comments so you can defend yourself?

    Here's the entire paragraph:

    We'll see what happens with the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits, and we'll also see whether the Austerity Train keeps rolling on, leading to further cuts in spending; as the article mentions, Obama wants to be able to have better economic conditions as we head into the next election, but I think we have to be mindful of Obama's tendency to cater to the fiscal conservatives (probably because he is one, himself), whose policies do not lend themselves to growth.

    You say:

    Obama is not, as we speak, catering to fiscal conservatives at the same time that you are accusing him of catering to fiscal conservatives.

    Problem is that that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying that he has a history of doing that and we have to be mindful of that history as we see what the new year, heading into the election, brings.

    I made NO comment about what is happening "even as we speak."  

    And I hate to break it to you, but Obama's not in the closet on economic policy - he's out and has been out for some time.

    And, personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether he starts sounding like a liberal in hope of being re-elected; I care about what he's done on the economic front, what he's been pushing for that is counter to economic growth, because once he's got that second term, all bets are off.

    Parent

    and, Anne, as a convenient (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    and completely unexpected confirmation of what I was saying, see the comment that posted before mine.  What you are saying and what ABG is claiming you said are not the same thing at all.  Apparently the difference (which seems obvious and gaping to me) is not apparent to some people.  

    I find that astounding.  And somewhat bewildering, truth be told.

    Parent

    What's frustrating is responding to his (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    specific points, and having him put a whole new spin on what I've written; I've lost count of the number of times he's cast something I've said as being in agreement with a position I don't hold - and have been clear about not holding.  

    It's gotten to the point where I don't know whether he is, in fact, under the impression that he is a master bamboozler, or that he might have a learning disability - and I don't posit that lightly, as I have family members with learning disabilities and they are no joke.

    Whatever is behind it, it's just become incredibly tiresome to have a third or more of a thread be taken up by people just trying to correct his interpretations of comments that shouldn't need to be interpreted to begin with; it derails the discussion and makes people - me - testy.

    Yeah, I could ignore him, but I suppose the reason I don't is that I don't like having specious, ill-informed and yes, dishonest, comments go unchallenged and end up standing as fact.

    Maybe instead of the 1-5 rating, we should have Pinocchio ratings...the more "noses" one gets, the less fact/truth to be found within.

    Parent

    I understand, I do (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    On the rare occasions (which may not seem rare to him, but are) that I engage instead of ignore him, I find that his responses -- and therefore the conversation -- just gets twistier and twistier the longer it goes on.  Which, I just realized, is probably why I therefore limit myself to one-liners at that point.  Less material to get twisted...

    Parent
    This is (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    all horse pucky.

    See. That was short.

    Parent

    "This is all horse pucky." (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    Congratulations - I think you've found the perfect disclaimer/tag line you need to attach to most of your comments.

    Parent
    II know you are but what am I (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    Are these people serious.

    Parent
    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    I think what you need to realize is that ABG has an emotional investment in Obama. Obama is some kind of messiah figure or something to him and it's not really about policy or results or anything else. remember the Bushbots who lauded everything W. did? If you can kind of see ABG as the reverse of that then you'll kind of realize that arguing with him is really futile. ABG really doesn't have any core beliefs anymore than Obama does. You can't argue with with a shape shifter, you know.

    Parent
    How the he!! can you say something like this (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    about someone you don't even know based on some posts on an internet blog?

    There's entirely too much "oh I know this person so well" nonsense on this site recently.

    The man has opinions, you have yours.  Facists indeed.  For those that are wondering.  Liberal isn't just about policy - it's a way of thinking.

    Parent

    this part of your comment (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    Liberal isn't just about policy - it's a way of thinking.

    is an excellent point & a good reminder

    Parent

    Ouch (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    Point taken.  But that knife, while sharp, cuts boths ways.

    I hope that vicndabx continues to make this point when ABG starts droning on about "we liberals" as he sells liberal ideals down the river.  

    Parent

    "liberal is a way of thinking" (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 06:10:01 PM EST
    to me this means having respect for others' positions & avoiding distortions & ad hominem/ad feminam arguments

    i have not always held myself to this standard & will probably fall short again

    but maybe it's easier to spot (& subsequently seek to avoid) sleazy tactics of argumentation after having been their target, as i have been several times lately, here at TL & elsewhere, when my expressed views crossed "party lines," so to speak, & pushed the buttons of some who usually find themselves in agreement with me

    that really opened my eyes to my own capacity, & that of others usually on my "side," for bullying & effectively shouting down commenters with different views

    Parent

    Yup, you took some hits (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 06:25:30 PM EST
    You're talking about your position on Occupy, right?  If so, I don't agree with your conclusions.  Vehemently.  But you had clearly given thought to what you were saying.  So I stayed out of it.  I think.  I don't think I joined the pile-on.  Could have been braver, maybe, and proactively defended you, but as I said, I disagreed.

    But it's always been that way.  ABG, for all his whining and self pity, is a huge bully.  

    People are people, for a' that.

    Parent

    Please (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:03:20 PM EST
    I bully no one.  

    People just can't handle different ideas and they get all flustered.

    If you can't respond with a counter idea, don't blame me.  Grow up and use your grown up words.

    Parent

    ABG, it isn't that people can't handle (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 07:28:35 AM EST
    different ideas - not at all; the people who regularly comment here have absolutely no problem communicating their own opinions and countering the opinions of others.

    What people have a problem with is having to interrupt a train of thought or discussion to correct your representation of their opinions and comments; as I mentioned in an earlier comment, when I have repeatedly expressed that X is my opinion, there is no excuse for or reason why you come up with comments that say, "so you agree with Y," other than (1) you are doing it deliberately to get under people's skin, (2) you don't really care what others have said and you just want to shape the argument the way that works best for your point of view, or, (3) you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

    Given that you don't ever apologize for misstating someone's - my - comments, or ask for further clarification to make sure you understand what someone's saying, I'm going with the 1-2 combo pack.

    You may start out expressing your ideas, but when others counter them - and they do - your response tends to not offer further support for your own position, but to veer off into changing what that person said.

    Continuing to misrepresent the clear comments of others until they give up trying to explain themselves, and doing so for what appears to be the goal of allowing your dishonest representation of them and their opinions to stand, is classic bullying behavior.

    Parent

    It's not classic bullying behavior, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    At least, I don't find him bullying at all.

    It is classic trolling behavior though, and you described his intent well. It is to derail discussions, and waste peoples time.

    Parent

    Disagree Anne (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    My New Year's resolution is to be more brief so:

    "Bully" implies power.  I disagree with you and others.  Strongly.  But I have no power to stop you or anyone else.  I do not try to get others to censor you.  I encourage you to share your often wrong opinions.  If you think that is bullying, you don't understand what bullying is.

    You misrepresent my comments constantly and have for a long time.  It's wrong, but it is not bullying.

    Anyway, this is boring now.  As much as I love me, there are other things to discuss.  I am not going anywhere and I'm going to comment here on policy issues that interest me for as long as our hosts will allow, so we should probably just move on.

    [Rats, that wasn't so brief]

    Parent

    Bullying doesn't imply power (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    Other than power that the bully is attempting to assume.  One student has no more intrinsic "power" than another but can still be a bully.

    Parent
    No, you really are a bully (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    horse-pucky and all that.  Is that what you call your grown up words?

    Parent
    i agree, ABG (none / 0) (#108)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    you are frequently (not always) a troll, & you do seem to enjoy hijacking threads - then again, no thread can be hijacked without particpation from those with opposing views

    you are, & intend to be, provocative, sometimes because you appear to have TL confused with a P^MA site - at other times, you make straightforward points that are dismissed out of hand because they came from you

    you are the favorite target of pile-ons, as i know from reading TL as well as from having joined in myself more than once

    but a bully? no, you are not

    Parent

    Sorry, on this we disagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:56:18 PM EST
    I have felt bullied by ABG.  The condescension, sneering and obvious twisting of words is bullying.  Not in an adolescent way, though.  I'll grant you that.

    Parent
    that, but mostly (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    about my experience on another blog

    as i said w/r/t Occupy Oakland, i don't mind disagreeing with someone but do hope to have a reasoned discussion

    as for piling on, you didn't do that, but i've done it plenty here myself, that's for sure

    Parent

    just curious, sj (none / 0) (#122)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    & not wanting to open up a whole heated discussion, but i'm wondering what it was i said about Occupy Oakland that you strongly disagreed with

    Parent
    Oh dear (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    I'm going to have to do this by memory because I don't recall how far back that was and I hate scanning back comments.

    As I remember it, you were critical of the calls for a strike.  That the lost day of work would hurt some people.  Which is true.  You thought the action was a big mistake.  I disagree strongly with this.  Strikes hurt.  

    It may sound like I'm being casual about the affect on some people.  I'm not.  My Dad was union, and never crossed a picket line.  Whether it was his union striking or not.  And there are several trades/unions that work a construction site.

    And those strikes hurt.  He was supporting a large family, the strikes didn't last one day, and they hurt.  But depressed wages hurt.  And they hurt with a ripple affect.  He understood that.  And never crossed a picket line.

    You cannot please all people all of the time.  Don't you think that Mother Jones and Red Emma Goldman upset some workers?  And surely you remember the logging industry lining up against environmentalists.  

    Although I generally reject binary arguments, sometimes when it comes to action there is a binary choice.  And even when I can see both sides, and have sympathies with both sides I have to make a binary choice as to where my support lies.  In this case, my support was with the longer term goals.  

    Now I'm not from Oakland.  I don't personally know anyone who would be hurt by this.  I have no personal dog in that hunt.  Maybe that's why I stayed out of the conversation.  

    Having said that, my support is with the longer term goals of Occupy.  And if this was the action that they collectively (although I have great doubts it was also unanimously) chose to take I understand the "why" and support it.

    And having said that, I agree that Occupy has to be very smart from here on out.  But if smart means no toes get stepped on -- well, I don't think that's possible.  That's the pre-Occupy mode of operation.  And I don't think it's been working out very well for us.

    Parent

    thanks, sj (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    i appreciate your taking the time to respond, & your heartfelt response

    you don't quite capture my perspective, but i can understand why you think you did - & again, i do appreciate your effort to do that

    future threads may present further opportunities to clarify & exchange views

    Merry Christmas!

    Parent

    I'm not surprised that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    that I didn't quite capture your perspective.  As I said, I hate scanning for back comments.  Apologies.  

    I have no doubts that we will have future opportunities to discuss it.  

    Merry Christmas to you and your family as well.

    Parent

    Because of his (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    posts. It is very obvious what ABG is about if you've been around here and read a lot of his posts.

    Parent
    MKS (2.00 / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    I think we all need to realize is that GaDem has an emotional investment in opposing Obama. Obama is some kind of satanic figure or something to him and it's not really about policy or results or anything else. Remember the Clinton Lovers who loved everything Clinton did? If you can kind of see GaDem as the reverse of that then you'll kind of realize that arguing with him is really futile. GaDem really doesn't have any core beliefs anymore than opposing whatever Obama does. You can't argue with with a shape shifter, you know.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    actually I don't have any emotional investment in Obama one way or the other. My problem with Obama has been the results he has produced and the lack of leadership which have nothing to do with emotions.

    One thing you have to realize is that Clinton had a good economy which Obama does not. I am not the only one that does not like Obama's results with regards to the economy.

    You can't even come up with a decent defense of what you have been saying? You don't seem to realize that as long as Obama does it you are promoting it as okay. Even when Obama does a 180 you make excuses like it's the best that he could do.

    Parent

    Calling vicndabx (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    I think MKS is ready for some of that righteous outrage you expressed up-thread to GA6thDem.  I thought ABG would need it first, but I was wrong.

    Parent
    Dang (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    I need to read better.  It was ABG and it was addressed to MKS.  That's what I get for being in a hurry.

    Parent
    It's confusing (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    When people talk around someone right there reading comments isn't it?

    Parent
    Nah, not really (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    It just needs a little reading comprehension.  Which I didn't give it.

    Parent
    The flaw in your reasoning (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    is that the economy is growing under his policies.

    Parent
    The "economy" (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    as more than just unemployment and stock market numbers.  The "economy" should serve the society not dictate to it.  When it starts doing that on a consistent basis I will start breathing a sigh of relief.  Until then, fight or flight instincts will remain in play.

    Parent
    The economy (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    is society.

    Parent
    While the trend is positive (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    keep in mind the actual empirical data is still negative. While the number of new jobless claims has come down, at the present rate we are still shedding jobs. In other words, the new jobs created still have not overcome the jobs being cut.

    But, as we wall street wheelers and dealers say, "the trend is your friend."

    Let's hope the trend continues. Until then we're just dying a little bit slower.

    Parent

    Nyshooter (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    Fair points.

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    or at least I agree with what I think you mean by that.  But that's not how you typically "analyze" it.

    Parent
    Pretty close, Anne (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    You have been clear here and elsewhere that you believe that Obama is basically a Republican on economic issues....That is who he is....

    I don't agree, but that is your position....

    You are making a fine distinction here.  What I don't understand is why you take such offense to ABG's characterization.....I have to squint to see the difference between what he says and what you say.....

    Parent

    I sometimes wonder (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    if he cannot actually tell the difference between his so-called interpretation and what you are actually saying.  It's so frequently done that it can't possibly be that he just hasn't read the whole comment.

    In the spirit of Christmas I'm going to try not to feel like smacking him up-side the head at lack of reading comprehension, and give him the benefit of the doubt instead.  Some people really can't do nuance.

    Parent

    Even Krugman is still stuck (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    in the fantasy that that two party system is anything more than a two faced monster that oscillates back and forth promising promises to half the people while screwing the other half?

    Trade you a crumb for a few hundred years of fascism/neo-feudalism?

    C'mon E... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    think of the cleaner air we will share in a indefinite detention camp one day;)

    All snarking aside, it's good some good can be accomplished despite our plentiful systemic problems.  

    Parent

    Watch (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    this...

    Parent
    By definition (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    If half the country believes one way and the other half believes the polar opposite, half of the people will get what they want and the other half will be screwed.

    Perhaps the issue isn't the parties per se, but the fact that the people are divided.

    Parent

    Or perhaps the issue (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    isn't really the "one-half this"/"one-half that" dichotemy.  Perhaps that black and white description that you use so frequently doesn't really exist.  Perhaps reality is more nuanced than the way you like to describe it.

    Not everybody views the world the way you do.  You watch unemployment numbers religiously.  I believe the numbers that you spout so triumphantly.  But the numbers are only the statistics with no analysis behind them.  

    You are content looking at the surface.  Some of us are not.

    Parent

    I don't create the dichotomy (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    that is a product of the populace.  Roughly half of the country believes in conservative core economic principles and the other more liberal economic principles.

    Those are just the numbers.  That isn't a creation.  Now I personally believe that we should do away with the strict lines on social issues.  I think there should be a place for hawks who believe in universal healthcare or for strong gay rights and same sex marriage proponents who believe in tough drug laws, or what have you.

    On those issues, there is more of a mix.

    But in any event, what is the answer.  The likely third party would be one of fiscal conservatives and social liberals.  My bet is that the most likely third party wouldn't satisfy most of the people here (KDog or Edger for example) so they would want a fourth party, which is likely to be further left fiscally and socially and that party is likely to be a lot smaller than the third party and way smaller than the original parties.

    The end result would be a decrease in liberal influence when you run through the permutations.

    Based on analysis I have seen, liberal principles lose out in a system with 3 or more parties.

    I think it is a cool thing to say, but people who say it have no idea what the actual repercussions would be and don't really have to because they know it won't happen.

    Parent

    I have no argument with your analysis there (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    To me it points out how important it is that those of us left of center continue to raise our voices and try to influence the Dems and Obama as much as possible. Without that, there will be no influence from the left at all.

    You can't simultaneously tell us to shut up and stop criticizing Obama and also that there is no point in us starting our own party.

    Parent

    Ruffian, do you really agree with this? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by dk on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    Roughly half of the country believes in conservative core economic principles and the other more liberal economic principles.
    Those are just the numbers.  That isn't a creation.

    Perhaps there are numbers out there that support this assertion.  I've seen plenty of numbers, however, that refute it.  For example, just to name a few examles, the well publicized NYT poll showing about 2/3 of Americans supported a government administered healthcare plan that all Americans had the option of using, poll after poll showing overwhelming support for higher taxes on the wealthy, etc.

    I can see the argument that because of the money and organizational advantages of the two major parties, the leadership of both of which is predominantly center to center right on economic policy, outside parties would be next to impossible to create on the federal level, and therefore the only hope is to try to fight from the inside of the Democratic party.  Frankly, I don't think there's much hope in that, given the dominance of big money in the party, but I understand that a lot of people are generally hesitant, and for understandable reasons, to try to push from outside the system.  But this whole idea that the entire country is hopelessly divided on economic policy?  I don't really buy it based on the available data points.

    Parent

    Ruffian (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    That is the best argument for taking Obama to task I have read here in a while.

    Parent
    Trends (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    While only looking at a bottom-line number, as in the unemployment rate may be too limiting--as you suggest, sj--the trends in the economic factors seem to be turning clearly positive (individually & cumulatively.). That  IS good news.  If the positive turn og the past weeks truly takes hold, we should realize that in the next month or two.  I'm optimistic.

    Parent
    trends (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    don't help me find a job, do they?  They don't pay my mortgage for me.  To most people the "economy" has nothing to do with indicators and numbers and trends.  The "economy" has to do with household security.

    I see what you're saying but you and ABG keep trying to keep things on the theoretical.  As if people with lives that include children and spouses and maybe elderly parents are secondary to the issue.  They are the issue to me.  Which is why citing numbers and then crowing about it sounds so very lame to me.  Not that you (specifically) do that.  Although you can get very casual about implications.

    Parent

    When you are a job (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    That is the world.  I understand that reality, sj.  That is what matters, what should matter.

    My reference to "trends" was meant only to note macro economic directions...and, only indirectly, to suggest that the several growth indicators will shortly be realized where it matters: in your home.

    Economic prognostications are sometimes fancy words for Wall Street gambling.  In fact, the nitty-gritty things that matter on the need level are the things you recognize.  That is why, for example, the reality of the payroll tax-cut extension (with the unemployment benefits extension) is important on the daily level for real people as well as on the political level. We can talk "politics" & real people at the same time....

    Parent

    Excuse serious typo in above title (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    Read:  "...you are without a job."

    Parent
    When the economy (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    was at 4% unemployment and booming there were still people who couldn't find jobs.  As sad as any individual story is (and there are many) we have to judge whether policies are working on a macro level.

    That's always the case.  It is unfair to point to the indicators that traditionally serve as a proxy for improvement and then focus on the micro when convenient.

    If that's the case, people should just say we are going to ignore GDP, unemployment, the stock market, etc. altogether.  You can't invoke them selectively and have it mean something.

    Parent

    That is a ridiculous statement (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    When the economy (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:46:56 PM EST

    was at 4% unemployment and booming there were still people who couldn't find jobs

    and refutes some argument that was never made.  Of course there were some people who weren't working for whatever reason or there would have been 0% unemployment.  What you didn't hear about was people actively seeking work and becoming 99 weekers.  Which is currently happening on a "macro" level.

    Parent
    And by the way (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    An attempt at a sort of dispassionate analysis does not square with any sort of attempt at vote getting.  You know that, right?  Acquiring a new vote or keeping an existing one is always done with a micro level review of the world.  Not a macro level.  Everyone sees their world as microcosm of the world at large.

    Even the "the other guy is worse" is a micro level argument.  The individual voter is supposed to feel personal fear at what "the other guy" will do.

    That's why "all politics is local".

    So FWIW if you really want your guy to win I suggest spending less time at the "macro" level.  

    Parent

    Sj (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    This analysis is completely wrong.  Macro policies are how the government works for the most part.  I think this is all wrong.

    Parent
    Re-read my comment, please (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    I am not talking about government.  I am talking about voters.  Those two things are related but are not the same thing.  I was going to say "yin and yang" but neither one seems particularly yin to me.  So I'll say two sides of the same coin.

    If you can take that to heart you will see where many of the conflicts arise.

    Parent

    You talk about facism (none / 0) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    and then lament the fact that we struggle to implement policies that "work" because half of your fellow citizens feel the solutions you propose won't work.  What would you propose we do then?

    Parent
    Educate them? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    Provide a vision of the better world to aspire to and work for?  Believe it and sell it and work for it?  Instead of shrugging shoulders and saying "it's the best we can do".

    Parent
    Educate them (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    which assumes of course "they" haven't come to an informed conclusion, and, is condescending to boot.

    No one is saying it's the best we can do, better statement would be "it's the way it's supposed to work."  That is, representative democracy.

    Parent

    Worthy of condescension (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    Some of those conclusions are worthy of not only condescension but also derision.  But that's where the "sell it" part comes in to play.  

    If "they" are already ready to "buy" then... oh wait, that's where we are now.  Taking the path of least resistance.  The opposition has been doing the "selling" and people think it's an informed conclusion.


    Parent

    Education, is the ultimate answer, of course (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    Until them I'm reminded of that saying that  "There are none so blind as those who won't see.". Specifically, as for that saying, how should we address the evident issue involving those who appear to vote against their own economic interests ... As in so-called Red States?

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    They think those on the left need to be educated to see the error of their ways too.

    How to make it work when both sides think they are right and the other side doesn't know what they are talking about?

    Parent

    just because they think it too (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    doesn't mean they are correct.  Truth is not always (or even usually) bipartisan.

    Frankly, I think the only way to convince people is through action.  You can say/think whatever you want till the cows come home, but when you see it you are more likely to believe it.  Not that that always works right away, sometimes it can take a generation or two.  But opinions can and do change.

    Parent

    Which brings me back to my point (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:27:25 PM EST
    If everything the left espoused was absolutely correct or the  whole truth, then most people would believe it and embrace it, because hey - who doesn't want full employment, free health care, etc? Seems to me that the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle.  Also, there are many issues for which my truth may not be the same as your truth, and one, both, or neither may be the actual truth (or correct way of doing things).

    YOU believe the left espouses the truth and the right does not.  Everyone here believes that, for the most part. But that doesn't mean your world view is the "correct one", or that my world view is the "correct one".  Vic's comment was right on - it is extremely arrogant and condescending to assume that people that don't agree with you are stupid and wrong. It also smacks of something out of a dictatorship where people need to go to "re-education camps".

    Perhaps what was meant is that we should insist our leaders put forth policies that will help people and then everyone will be persuaded to come together and work on the issues where we aren't so far apart.

    Parent

    stupid? no (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    wrong? yes.  Frankly, saying the truth is "somewhere in the middle" is like making a decision to not make a decision.

    If that makes me arrogant and condescending so be it.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Here's the thing that makes discussions so crazy making these days.  When I was younger Dems and GOP agreed on the problems but disagreed on the solutions.  The "free market" and uncontrolled deregulation and "no taxes for the rich" hadn't become the be-all end-all of the Republican party.  They weren't caricatures.  

    In that kind of world jbindc's comments make sense.  In light of today's Republican party -- many of whose members might be perfectly lovely people -- that argument doesn't really hold water, in my eyes.

    Parent

    well and on an issue by issue basis (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    sometimes I don't agree with the "left".

    But that's because I've made a decision the other way.  Not because it's "in the middle".

    And yes, I realize there are shades of grey in life, but in terms of politics that often doesn't apply.

    What's "in the middle" when it comes to gay marriage?  What's "in the middle" when it comes to abortion?  Either it's legal or it's not.  Either you have it or you don't.  You can't sort of be married, or have half a child.  Even on economic tax issues where middleground should be clearer, "in the middle" I assume means you believe in some taxes, right now that puts you square in the left.  Believing in a progressive tax structure puts you left of left.

    So yea, I was being a little over-zealous in talking about no middle ground, but on a lot of issues it's a false choice.

    Parent

    I do not argue for (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    seeking the middle, so I guess I have been unclear.  I am an proud unrepentant liberal.  By today's standards I am a Socialist (and I do love me some Bernie Sanders).

    So trust me when I say that I don't advocate making compromises and seeking the middle.  I do not.  What I am saying is this:  when I am a hungry and homeless and unemployed, I am unlikely to spend my day working for the repeal of DADT.  If am hungry and homeless and unemployed and pregnant, then availablility of abortion may be a critical issue, but otherwise food and housing trump all other concerns.  Even health.  Trust me, that does not mean I consider my health a marginal issue.  It means only that my attention must be focussed on my primary problem -- until it is no longer a problem.

    That is why it is up to the rest of us who are not hungry and homeless and unemployed [and pregnant] to hold our ground and continue to advocate.  And it is also why we can't just casually compromise away rights and privileges and freedoms of others just because it might make my goal easier to obtain.

    Everyone has to make choices.  Not everyone has the same priorities.  For example, a gay man is not as likely to be as invested in reproductive choices as a heterosexual woman in her child-bearing years.  

    Speaking (finally) for myself, when I think about my priorities and my issues I don't even think about what is "left" or what is "right".  I think instead of what I think is right (as in right and just).  Where it falls on any sort of spectrum doesn't come into play when I make my choice.  Only if I have to defend it, later, does that matter.

    Parent

    yea i agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    especially your last paragraph, which is what I've been trying to say I think.

    It's not about "left" and "right".  It's about "right" and "wrong".  And I'm sorry, but just because a lot of people disagree with me, doesn't mean the answer is in the middle.  Pretty much the entire world use to think that the sun revolved around the earth.  They were all wrong.

    And yes, I realize there are some issues I may be wrong about.  I have no doubt about the fact that 10 years from now I'll look back at something I think now and say "that was wrong".  What I absolutely don't buy is the notion that it's a zero-sum (or even small-sum) game between right and left.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:59:57 PM EST
    I thought we agreed.  We just needed to find a common vocabulary. :)

    Parent
    As with any other problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    to have any hope of finding a solution you begin with recognition of the problem.

    Parent
    Got someone instead of Nader? (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:15:08 PM EST


    Parent
    What's the shelf-life ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    ... on that Nader fixation?

    ... or should it be "half-life"?

    Parent

    True, people just want to forget (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    the Nadar debacle but,as it is said, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.....

    A valid point does not become invalid by the mere passage of time....

    Parent

    I was talking about ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    ... how you (repeatedly) bring Nader up, particularly in response to Edger.

    That being said, not sure what you mean by the Nader "debacle".  Those who blame Gore's loss on Nader seem to think that somehow Gore/Democrats were entitled to the votes of those who voted for Nader.  Seems more than a bit presumptuous.  I voted for Gore, but I can understand why others would vote for Nader or a third party.

    Parent

    And, I do not get a response (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    Nader tilted Bush into the Whitehouse....As you know, he drew much support from Florida....

    Of course, no one is entitled to a anyone's vote, but as a matter of cause and effect, if Nader had left well enough alone, history would have been far different....

    Parent

    but you could say the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    about the elderly voters of Palm Beach who screwed up their badly designed ballots

    Parent
    IIRC wasn't the butterfly ballot (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    implemented by a Democratic politician?

    Parent
    yes, it was (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    designed by Theresa LePore, a registered Democrat at the time - after the 2000 election, she switched to no affiliation

    poor Theresa - hers is the type of infamy shared by the unfortunate Steve Bartman

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    But it's easy for me.  I can't imagine what our military life would be like under McCain other than hell comes to mind.  President Obama has brought safety and sanity to my life, and we are not unemployed and underemployed.  I don't think I'm his problem when it comes to reelection.

    Truly, who cares if they are eating mercury when it has come down to they just need to eat.  When you are really hungry you will eat dirt and worry about it later.

    Stranger things have happenned. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by dk on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Do we know this couldn't have happenned in a McCain administration?  Honest question...did McCain specifically oppose it?  

    Probably would have have been unexpected for McCain to have done it, but any more unexpected than a Democrat rejecting FDA recommendations to make Plan B more available?  

    Maybe a global warming-related example would have been more convincing on its face, as disbelief in global warming does seem to be more or less an official part of Republican party dogma.

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by BDB on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    He gutted the Clean Air Act, putting in place weaker regs than Bush and will no doubt approve the XL pipeline and he's helped encourage fracking.  He's also been a disaster on global warming and because he's Obama, his position has given cover to other countries who never would have embraced the same positions had they been offered by Bush.

    This may be a good move, but it's very small in the scheme of the larger environmental picture where Obama has been in his own way just as disastrous as W and in some cases (clean air) more so.  It's classic Obama, do something good that's very small, claim it's historic and then step on the gas to push the big problem in the wrong direction.  

    We're screwed and 2012 isn't going to change that.  Presidents matter, but who is president matters less so.  Because no matter who the next President is, he is going to lead this country in the wrong direction and be a disaster for most Americans, including on the environment.  

    Agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:07:23 AM EST


    To me (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    this says that the President matters around the margins nothing more.

    This isn't marginal (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    Nor was blocking the T-Mobile US acquisition. Likewise Supreme Court nominations.

    The President matters.

    Parent

    it is a bit eye opening (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    all the prgoressive causes that have become "marginal" the last few years.

    DADT, the supreme court, EPA regulations, drawdown in Iraq, bailing out detroit, etc... etc...

    You add up all the "marginals" and pretty soon we're talking about real people.

    Parent

    True, but listening to Larry Summers (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:40:45 AM EST
    and Tim Geithner have brought Americans so much pain and suffering that other incredible things have become marginal.

    Flight school has had a hiring freeze on for instructors now for a year.  Flight school is a mixture of soldiers in uniform taking a break from deployments and teaching upon a bedrock of reliable, stable, firm DOD civilian instructors.

    For years now, the slots that soldiers were supposed to be filling was always short, because of things called wars.  Civilians were filling in the holes.  We have civilians retiring though now, and because of the hiring freeze they have not been replaced.  Flight school is feeling a lot of pain, and impending budget cuts will make things worse.  Even the people that used to be happy are getting very very very unhappy while our President thought it was a good thing to easily bargain away ending the insane Bush tax cuts.  The Republicans are going to suffer enormously over this, but this President easily can too.  Put up someone who agreed with none of them and he might have a really big problem.

    Parent

    he might have a problem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    Because of the economy, and he's "earned" that problem so to speak.  I am making no bets on how the 2012 election will go.  But I am 100% sure I know how I want it to go.

    Basic human rights, fairness, and eliminating poison from the air aren't fringe issues.  I also fully expect any republican candidate, very much including Mitt Romney, to be a much bigger disaster on the economy than Obama.  And that's not a fringe issue either.

    Parent

    I agree. They may be fringe in the sense of not (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    being the first things on people's minds, but in the big picture they are front and center, to me anyway. I have no doubt the a GOP administration with a GOP-controlled congress (which we have now, despite a technical Dem Senate majority)  would be worse on every count, or have we forgotten 2000-2006 already?

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    really that people don't think the GOP would be worse but you have Obama pretty much preaching bi-partisanship which kind of undercuts that whole message.

    Besides, a lot of people are sick of voting against something and want something to vote FOR.

    Parent

    BINGO (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 07:23:55 AM EST
    He seems to be getting the hell away from preaching it finally, but it was all he talked about for three long miserable years.

    Parent
    Agree. It is infuriating. (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    Until I get something to vote for, I will vote against something worse, even if I am tired of it.

    Parent
    It's the (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    economy stupid.

    Parent
    they aren't (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    mutually exclusive

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    a matter of priorities.

    Parent
    The number (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    one problem in this country is the economy right now. So all this would be great if the economy was humming along but it's not. The second biggest problem in this country is healthcare and the ACA only provided marginal help there.

    Parent
    I prefer to doubt (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:58:23 AM EST
    that you actually believe this.

    Parent
    Maslow's (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    hierarchy of needs. If you are struggling to afford food and shelter and healthcare, then everything else kind of falls off the grid of consideration.  

    Parent
    Your false choice (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    is just too marginal for me to bother fighting.

    Parent
    hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    That one isn't a false choice.  I haven't had to worry about my very next meal but I have had to worry about how I was going to afford next week's meals for myself and (here is the clincher) for my son.  We ate a lot of potatoes and a lot of beans.

    Everything else paled in comparison to meeting that need.  

    There are many problems that do not subsume all mental/emotional energy.  Potential lost of food and housing is not among them.

    Parent

    this is economic as well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    As someone who only has a job because of the stimulus coming out of the federal government, essentially what this sounds like is "your job/life is marginal".

    The company I worked for from 2006 - 2008 no longer exists.  Most of my coworkers were unemployed at that time.  We all have jobs now because of the stimulus funding.  That might seem "marginal" to you, but please understand that it's not to others.  And that's true for other things on this list as well.  I'm sure DADT isn't "marginal" for someone who was gay and had a career in the military, or bailing out detroit for someone who works in the auto industry.  It is very much a "potential lost food and housing" question.

    Parent

    I don't see where we disagree (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    Of course your current employment is significant.  How can it possibly be marginal?  As one who has been doing consulting/contracting for five years I understand exactly how important that is.  So I'm not sure why you think I thought that was marginal.  It is not.  And I know it is not.

    As your two examples (DADT/military and Detroit bailout) show, potential loss of food and housing trumps other considerations.  Not that those other considerations aren't important -- because they are.  But you can really only do battle on those other fronts if you aren't worrying about where your battlestation actually is.

    Parent

    I guess what I'm getting at (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Is that a lot of these issues that people keep dismissing as marginal are in fact bread and butter issues.  Just not always in the most obvious ways.

    Parent
    I think we might need to agree on (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:42:32 PM EST
    what the word "marginal" means.  To me, marginal means unimportant.  So none of the examples you gave are marginal issues.  

    Having said that, I, like everyone, must choose where I spend my time and energy.  Prioritizing one thing over another does not make the thing further down on the list a "marginal" thing.  It just means that I have other proirities right now.  And "I" wouldn't presume to try to set priorities for someone else.

    Parent

    For any marginally competent President (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:08:09 PM EST
    is is clearly a false choice.

    The idea that the executive branch should just drop everything until the economic situation is cured is ridiculous on its face.

    Parent

    Ah, I see where we didn't communicate (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    You took Ga6th's original comment at face value.  I read it as an exclamation of frustration.  Read that way, this comment of yours comes out of left field.

    Read your way, this comment of yours makes perfect sense :)

    Parent

    Let me (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    just tell you something. I am glad that you can think these things are just wonderful and awesome. I have cancer. I have to have surgery again. Fortunately it is curable but that means a ton of money out the door in medical bills. So medical bills mean LESS food in this house with two children at home right now. So you can give me a lecture about how important this or that is but I'm LIVING with this economy EVERY DAY. I am feeling the full brunt of the ACA and the rotten economy. So while I'm glad that you're able to celebrate about the small bore things that Obama has done, you're also forgetting and ignoring literally millions of people in this economy who are being damaged by Obama's inability to manage the economy.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    that everyone understands that people are suffering and feel for all of them (I definitely feel for you and your situation and wish you all the best).

    But we are talking macro policy here. It is unfair to use any personal situation to make a claim of supremacy of knowledge about the macro economy.  

    There were people getting the raw end of the stick when the economy is booming and there are people getting the raw end of the stick now.

    What the government should be doing is minimizing the numbers of people hurting and minimizing the hurt generally.  You can only gauge a government's success by focusing on the macro.

    Again, I am sorry for your struggle.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    You are talking macro (word of the day) policy.  Most of the rest of us are talking about how that macro policy affects the individual.  And that's what this country consists of: millions and millions of individuals.  Individuals who are neither lemmings nor Borg.  And it is those millions and millions of individuals who will vote.  

    Without micro, macro cannot exist.  And it cannot vote under any circumstances.

    Parent

    Is it possible to agree with (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    The principle that macro & micro influence each other...at some point and in some time fashion.

    Is it possible that, depending upon our own circumstances, we may emphasize one aspect over another from time to time.  And, is it also possible that one's emphasis --because of individual situations--does not necessarily evidence error or bad intent on the part of one who has a different viewpoint/emphasis  than our own.

    It is sounding like:  How do we honor the other's viewpoint with the recognition that to do so does not lessen the worth of of our own circumstances?

    Parent

    Just so (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    depending upon our own circumstances, we may emphasize one aspect over another from time to time.  And, is it also possible that one's emphasis --because of individual situations--does not necessarily evidence error or bad intent on the part of one who has a different viewpoint/emphasis  than our own.

    As to this:
    It is sounding like:  How do we honor the other's viewpoint with the recognition that to do so does not lessen the worth of of our own circumstances?

    When ABG "honors" my viewpoint instead of his usual drumbeat about how out of step it is with what the polls are showing, I will give that serious consideration.  Until then honoring his viewpoint is not an aspect to which I will give emphasis.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    but macro effects millions of people not just me. And as far as anybody "understanding" what the middle class is going through, well, I'm certainly NOT seeing any empathy for the middle class coming out of Washington. But I really can't say it's just Washington because the morons here in GA haven't a clue either and have just about as much as empathy as they do in Washington.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#115)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    what Ga6thDem speaks about is not just happening to a few; it is happening to millions.  The issues she raises are being felt, in all too real ways, throughout this country.  

    Parent
    But it does not mean that you don't still need the (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    other stuff.  And you are talking about a perceived hierarchy. People do not know how high the environment should actually rank in their thinking.

    Parent
    When The President Matters | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment