A Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:06:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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

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

< Bargaining | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

A Speech | 214 comments (214 topical)

Repbulican stratergy on rasing the Debt ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:28:39 PM EST

Obama IMO is up against a wall on the debt ceiling time line. You can't veto it if he does not like what the Rep make it since it's saying the U.S is going to default on it obligations which would cause havoc worldwide.

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

This in my opinion has a horrible side (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:36:18 PM EST

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

Parent

No veto necessary (none / 0) (#5)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:38:27 PM EST

A bad deal simply won't pass the Senate if the Dems hold firm.

This way Obama is shielded from having to veto anything.

Parent

The senate will not risk it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:43:59 PM EST

because then the Dems in the Senate will be held responsible for the default process. Political suicide. Remember the ceiling has to be agreed to by the deadline in order to avoid the default process.

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

Parent

If it passes the Dem Senate, then Obama (none / 0) (#11)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:47:19 PM EST

will not veto it.

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

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

Parent

Maybe I missing something here (none / 0) (#18)
by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST

but the debt ceiling has to be increased or kept at the current level before the deadline. That can only be done by voting on the increase. If the Senate does not take any action like you say then the deadline is not met and the default process is automatically initiated and the Dem Senate gets blamed.

You have no choice but to raise it or default.

Parent

Not quite (none / 0) (#162)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:55:04 PM EST

There's apparently a couple months' wiggle room. There are various things Treasury can do, I keep hearing over and over again, that can stall off the day of reckoning until around July.

Parent

: That is just moving the deadline date forword (none / 0) (#192)
by Saul on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:59 PM EST

the discussion at hand is what must be done before that deadline arrives. There must be a vote to increase the debt ceiling and I am just pointing out how the Rep will handle the increase debt ceiling by issuing mini increases but which will only be good for two or three weeks. Obama must accept these mini increases to avoid default. They will continue to issue these minis before the next deadline (in two weeks) until they get to the final agreed amount and the strings attached to there final agreement.

Parent

But if the president (none / 0) (#8)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:43:56 PM EST

can bomb Libya without the legal authority to do so why can't he just instruct the treasury to keep making payments? What is congress going to do about it? Impeach him?

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

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

Parent

leads quickly to hyperinflation (none / 0) (#15)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:44 PM EST

especially in an era when "full faith and credit" backs the currency.

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

Parent

No (none / 0) (#17)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:51:41 PM EST

it does not. This is a complete myth. Absent full utilization of resources, including human resources, government spending per se doesn't cause inflation. Instead the economy expands to soak up the extra spending.

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

Parent

Can you point me to some readings on this? (none / 0) (#22)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:54:57 PM EST

What you wrote is the opposite of what I learned, so I'd like to read up on it.

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

Parent

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

here.

Parent

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

thanks.

Parent

We already have hyper inflation (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:56:40 PM EST

it is only the hyper deflation in what real estate is worth that has masked what our food and fuel increases have been and any other thing that is a necessity.

Parent

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

Link

Parent

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

Parent

Inflation for sure (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:29 PM EST

but not hyper-inflation. I was in Poland when they were redenominating their currency. Ten Thousand (old) Zloty was redenominated to ONE (new) Zloty. And there were about 3 Zloty to the american dollar.

That's hyper-inflation.

Parent

I went to Poland once on vacation and (5.00 / 1) (#167)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:40 PM EST

went into a nice hotel in Zakopane and asked the cost of a room. When the desk clerk said 650,000 Zloty I nearly fell over. Then in a disgusted look she said $65 dollars. It was a steal!

Parent

: I bet it was (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:52 PM EST

I won't forget my first experience of "fast food" in Krakow. We ordered at the counter and sat down to wait. It arrived in less than 2 minutes -- made with fresh ingredients and served on beautiful white china.
I love LOVE Poland.

Parent

Yep, in Brazil, 2000 (none / 0) (#54)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:12:51 PM EST

cruzeiros to 1 real. Argentina, you spent everything every day.

Parent

I'm not saying that (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:16 PM EST

it can't get worse, but it is hyper right now

Parent

: It's really not (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:19:27 PM EST

hyper-inflation. Although I understand why you feel that way. We agree that it can get worse.
Much worse.

Parent

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

Parent

If I were playing the "bipartisan" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:53:02 PM EST

drinking game, would I be under the table yet?

: not yet (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:55:00 PM EST

talking about those with the most should pay more.....
Sounding general Democratic themes so far.

Parent

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

and hates taxes.....

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

I hate that assertion (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:23 PM EST

I don't hate taxes. I'm grateful that I have an income to pay taxes on. Plus, taxes are the price of a civilized society.

Parent

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

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

Parent

: What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:45:25 PM EST

While I agree that corporate welfare has been funded by tax payer dollars, by my standards that is a complete misuse of funds. And who the heck said federal spending was limited to my particular priorities? You do love your straw men (sudden thought: I wonder if you name them).
But federal dollars traditionally fund transportation costs (public and interstate), education (although apparently some think that ignorance should be the fate of those who can't afford private school), research into new technologies (space program) and hundreds of other things that make our society a better place to live. Or used to.
Anyone who thinks that the federal government shouldn't invest in the infrastructure of the nation is too silly for words. Or for further consideration.
Having a government job is not a sin in my book. Most of it is honest pay for honest work. The sin is in being elected to a position and then selling out the electorate.

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

Parent

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

"put everything on the table."

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

Parent

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

Parent

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

Parent

Perhaps the SS cuts will be offset (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:08:36 PM EST

by passing "right to work" laws for the elderly.
Because, after all, work makes you fr..

Parent

cold.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:10:53 PM EST

cold... us oldies need to get moving, right?

Parent

are you guys listening (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:34 PM EST

to what he is actually saying?

Parent

I just heard him say that savings based on (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:17:00 PM EST

last wk's cuts will total $750 billion. But we already know that NOT extending the tax cuts for the rich would have equaled that amount.

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

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

Parent

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

Parent

It is hard to take anything he says seriously (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:44 PM EST

When he doesn't EVER stand up the Republicans. He's just putting a very light wordy great orator line in the sand that they will argue all the way down the beach.

Parent

No baby boomers (none / 0) (#78)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:21:32 PM EST

lose benefits under his plan.

Period.

Parent

What is his plan? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:35 PM EST

Do you have the figures in writing some place?

Parent

there has never (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:52 PM EST

as far as I know, any plan that would effect anyone over 55

Parent

I don't believe it for one minute (none / 0) (#94)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:25:37 PM EST

So everyone BUT the baby boomers will sacrifice? I heard we are all sacrificing.

Parent

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

it's now just 55 and older?

Parent

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

at 1964 according to wiki

Parent

: right (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:47:41 PM EST

I'm a Boomer, but not over 55. So, either the Boomer age is being re-framed or saying Boomers will not be effected is false. About a decade of Boomers are being thrown under the bus if only over 55 are protected . . .

Parent

IIRC one element of the Cat Food Commission (none / 0) (#214)
by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:06:43 PM EST

once implemented could effect everyone who receives SS, now and in the future. This benefit formula change will be phased in very slowly, beginning in 2017 and not fully phasing in until 2050.

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

Parent

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

Parent

say that again (none / 0) (#83)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:59 PM EST

just for the hell of it

Parent

Is the point of reform to take benefits away from (none / 0) (#213)
by esmense on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:52:05 PM EST

baby boomers or to save benefits for future generations? I think it is saving the program for the future. The dimensions of the President's plan are not clear, but I would assume that increasing revenues is part of the plan. Removing, for instance, the income cap for contributions would be one way of capturing increased contributions from the many baby boomers who are now in or are just entering their peak earning/highest disposable income years (the oldest cohort of baby boomers turn 65 this year, but the many, many boomers born in the later, highest birthrate years of the baby boom, will be in the workforce for another 10 to 15 years). Perhaps there will have to be some adjustments to benefit. If so, I would hope those adjustments would apply to all -- that is, current and future beneficiaries. Revenues may have to be increased in other ways (besides removing the cap) too --but I hope that increasing payroll taxes paid by the youngest, poorest workers is not required. In my opinion the payroll tax burden on younger middle and working class earners is already, given their need to make costly personal investments in things like education and training, establishing families and careers, gaining experience, etc., and the increasing cost of doing those things, is way too high.

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

Parent

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

their minds....

Parent

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

Good grief.

Parent

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

concerning education, clean energy, railroads...

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

Parent

underfunded education, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:09:51 PM EST

horribly dirty manufacturing and home heating, etc., no school after 6th grade...

He overreached on that one, big time.

Parent

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

Are you reacting to something Obama said?

Parent

He hasn't said anything so far that matters (5.00 / 5) (#52)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:11:48 PM EST

because he's pretending to be a different president than the one he is. Now he's complaining about tax breaks for the rich? He gave it all way in December. He has ZERO f'ing credibility.

he has said a lot (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:23 PM EST

that matters to me. perhaps not you.

Parent

: But if he wanted this speech to matter (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:49 PM EST

It wouldn't be given in the afternoon. It's theatre, and weak. He SAYS a lot of things I like from time to time, never acts on those words. Just a bad track record that offers me little optimism.

Parent

Attacks Ryan budget on (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:12:39 PM EST

Medicare and vouchers.....sustained critique of Ryan budget. Wrong vision. New tax breaks for wealthy.

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

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

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

But what is really "on the table?"

Okay, when is the pivot coming?

he used 'homeland' (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:15:43 PM EST

and that is one serious concern. Homeland, "Rodina," Fatherland, Motherland... dangerous emotive term.

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

pretty hard

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

too late.

Parent

its not too late (none / 0) (#123)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:33:43 PM EST

they come up again before long

Parent

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

your breath.

Parent

how about this (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:10 PM EST

anyone want to bet they dont go through again?

Parent

: Nothing Obama says (none / 0) (#184)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:10:52 PM EST

today will have any bearing on whether he supports tax cuts for the rich in the future. With Obama everything is always on the table. When the time comes, tax cuts for the rich will be on the table once again.

Parent

He's playing the Dems the way (none / 0) (#126)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:35:36 PM EST

Republicans like Bush played the conservative base over abortion for so many years.
"You guys know that I really hate tax cuts. In fact, it wasn't me who signed that bill in December. You can forget you saw that!"

Parent

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

cutting benefits good.

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

What's the payback?

there are not (none / 0) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:22:16 PM EST

going to be any changes for anyone over 55

Parent

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

for 30+ yrs.

Parent

I've already paid in for 36 years (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:03 PM EST

and I'm not 55 yet.

Parent

ditto (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:00 PM EST

silly me for working since I was able . . .

Parent

wiki (none / 0) (#109)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:32 PM EST

Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1946 to 1964, when annual births declined below 4,000,000. They have since returned to higher levels in the "echo boom."

Parent

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

Parent

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

Parent

: The greatest year for jazz recordings!! (none / 0) (#142)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:44:29 PM EST

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Parent

I've never liked the classic definition for BB (none / 0) (#172)
by Farmboy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:03:10 PM EST

To me, it's more cultural than chronological. If you weren't old enough to go to Vietnam, you aren't a boomer. If the US flag has always had 50 stars, you aren't a boomer. And claiming that Farrah Fawcett is a generational peer to Bridget Fonda just doesn't seem right. That's why I've always liked the Generation Jones concept:

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

Parent

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

talkling about boomers

Parent

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

Parent

The 30 years I mention isn't my entire (none / 0) (#118)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:00 PM EST

earning history... it is the time since Reagan's bipartisan fix.

Parent

: and just think (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:36:58 PM EST

when we turn 65 we will have another 10yrs give or take of 'contributing' yet could still get scr*wed right now since we are under 55.

Parent

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

the baby boom technically ended.

Parent

Isn't that clever (none / 0) (#190)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:16 PM EST

how they never define the difference between "slashing" and "cutting"?

Ugh. Hypocrites.

Parent

Reduce spending in tax code (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:20:47 PM EST

No more tax cuts for wealthy.

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

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

Wow...That is good, progressive.

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

is a good defense?

Parent

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

But what he was saying...

Parent

He made a defense of (none / 0) (#145)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:05 PM EST

extending tax cuts and then said he would not do it again. He did not say his defense of extending tax cuts was that he would not go it again.

My truncated syntax was confusing above....

Parent

: That's how I read it (none / 0) (#154)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:39 PM EST

thanks for highlight throughout. appreciated it as i was watching local news for the weather :)

Parent

Uh-uh (none / 0) (#106)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:37 PM EST

I don't think that's good OR progressive. It is mostly the middle class that benefits from the interest deductions. That's our one big tax break on our one big investment -- our home.

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

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

Parent

For upper income people (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:36:19 PM EST

"millionaires" was what he said.....

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

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

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

Parent

Okay (none / 0) (#155)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:51:13 PM EST

Although I'm a little confused by the conflating of millionaires with those earning over $250K.

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

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

Parent

Sure (none / 0) (#164)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:56:17 PM EST

But this speech does not hurt....and sounded Democratic themes on taxes and fairness.....Good speech.....

But sure, just a speech....

Parent

I agree (none / 0) (#182)
by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:09:29 PM EST

"reining in the growth" of social programs is different from cutting benefits. If Pres. Obama can prevent cuts to benefits in Medicare, Medicaid (which he has extended, so he already gets points for that), and SS, then I'll be relatively happy. His embrace of austerity at this time sucks, but it's also nothing new.

Parent

: Remember even Big Dog Bill had (none / 0) (#197)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:19:57 PM EST

to say the "Era of Big Government is Over" before he defended Social Security and Medicare to the death.....

Parent

It's hard to pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:20 PM EST

as I'm at work and I can't blast the speech from my speakers...but I haven't heard him support raising the SS age or cutting benefits. So that's good.

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

from defense...

Parent

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

Parent

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

Parent

once more (none / 0) (#116)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:31:19 PM EST

there is no plan to cut benefits or raise the age for anyone over 55.
personally I dont think raising the age a little over an extended period is not an unreasonable thing.

Parent

I do (5.00 / 2) (#165)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:56:53 PM EST

personally I dont think raising the age a little over an extended period is not an unreasonable thing

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

Parent

You work a desk job (5.00 / 4) (#174)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:04:10 PM EST

The lowest-income workers in this country, those with the least retirement savings and who will get the smallest SS benefits, work with their bodies and those bodies are mostly burned out well before the current 65.

Parent

: That's why I shut down my contracting business (5.00 / 3) (#179)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:22 PM EST

at age 49. Injuries to my back and knees made it impossible to continue.
There really are two Americas.

Parent

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

There's a starting point.

Parent

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

the debt commission plan?

Parent

I hope not (none / 0) (#133)
by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:22 PM EST

Simpson-Bowles was/is not a good plan.

Parent

Howdy's right on that, though (none / 0) (#147)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:56 PM EST

Obama is letting the commision take the lead. Bad news, all the way around. Unless, of course, you believe in Obama's new slogan for 2012:

"Bipartisanship = Patriotism."

Parent

Not even a plan, really... (none / 0) (#166)
by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:25 PM EST

Since the commission couldn't reach consensus on a plan and died a death without publishing any agreed-upon conclusion.

Parent

: that could be a good thing (none / 0) (#177)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:00 PM EST

I could allow him to take some parts and not others.

Parent

Nope (none / 0) (#98)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:30 PM EST

Nothing like that.

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

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

Parent

The only way? (5.00 / 4) (#97)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:26:20 PM EST

That was really the ONLY way to keep taxes lower for the middle class? To give away the house before you even start to negotiate?

Quack.

Calling on congress for tax reform, blah blah blah.

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

He sounds disconnected. Words without feeling.

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

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

Nothing bad for progressives in this speech (none / 0) (#104)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:28:16 PM EST

The "Commission" idea is a dodge that will go nowhere.....

Parent

: You mean (none / 0) (#122)
by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:33:32 PM EST

like the Catfood Commission will go nowhere?

Parent

Not a single example of bi-partisanship he cites.. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:10 PM EST

...have ever done a positive thing, they were all bullsh*t bandaids and crumbs. Were they not, for example, working people would have gotten a raise in the last half century.

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

Fool.

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

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

find common ground... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:57 PM EST

Crikey...quit facilitating. LEad, follow, or get out of the way!

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

He's already negotiating it away! (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:44 PM EST

"We won't get everything we want... We have to bridge our differences and find common ground."

Bipartisanship = Patriotism!!!

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

Could have predicted exactly how this would end.

And we can't just think about ourselves (5.00 / 4) (#114)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:48 PM EST

That's rich coming from a guy who's idea of leadership is whatever is best for his electoral chances.

Unbelievable.

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

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

Click.

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

and the Ryan plan sux

But its important to work with my (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:37:31 PM EST

good friends across the aisle to come up with a bipartisan solution.
I'm not watching the speech, but the content sounds like an acid trip, compared to the reality of his Presidency.

Parent

: Sure, the surrender could come (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:50 PM EST

down the road--but it did not happen in this speech.
I'm glad for that...

Parent

Yup--but I'll take it (none / 0) (#131)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:00 PM EST

But attempts to cut Defense and raise taxes on the wealthy.

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

Parent

You think Obama is going to raise (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:46:27 PM EST

taxes going into election year? Come on, man---use some critical thinking skills!
Obama wants credit from the Dems for saying taxes on the wealthy should be raised, but god forbid actually signing a tax increase.

Parent

timing is off (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:09 PM EST

doesn't have to happen until after the election.

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

Parent

yes (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:16:04 PM EST

but this is where he had a great failure. The problem was that he didn't decouple the tax cuts for the rich with the ones for the middle class. Now with the GOP in control of congress, he will either have to sign onto it all again or he will have to let it all expire. I'm not sure he's willing to let them expire before an election.

Parent

letting them all expire (none / 0) (#201)
by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:23:33 PM EST

wouldn't happen until after the election.

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

Parent

I wouldn't (none / 0) (#206)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:26:46 PM EST

be surprised to see the GOP bring up a bill to extend them before the election.

Parent

: yea (none / 0) (#211)
by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:32:19 PM EST

but they can let that bill die and they still won't have raised taxes yet.
Besides, they don't control the senate just yet. Couldn't Reid etc... just let it die?

Parent

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

Parent

we'll see (none / 0) (#163)
by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:55:48 PM EST

but in any event it doesn't require "raising taxes in an election year" or "signing a bill"

So no excuses.

Parent

"We'll see" is not acceptable (none / 0) (#168)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST

any deal must have all parts enacted together.
If there is no tax increase as part of the bill, that means there is no plan for a tax increase (or letting tax cuts expire).
One doesn't trust ANY politician on these matters, but especially not Obama, with his record.

Parent

: what are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by CST on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:03:49 PM EST

I'm saying with no bill at all, the taxes are going to go up, because they were passed as a "temporary extension". The extension will not be up until after the 2012 election, hence him not having to raise taxes in an election year.
It doesn't require him to sign any thing because if no bill is passed, taxes will automatically go up.
Those are the parameters for the tax increases. "We'll see" meant "we'll see" what Obama ends up doing. I don't pretend to have a chrystal ball. My hunch is this time he will let them expire since he seems to be putting it on the line. I'm willing to bet you disagree with that. But that has nothing to do with how it would or would not happen.

Parent

I left you post above (none / 0) (#139)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:42:32 PM EST

Clarifying in my opinion the only way we can "get" true defense cuts and why I don't have any faith in him saying it right now. He had enough time to come up with something tangible and he did not.

Parent

Does he ever (5.00 / 2) (#161)
by star on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:54:57 PM EST

come up with anything tangible? That is why it is difficult to get excited by another "speech". we have been taken in too many times.

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

Parent

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

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

Parent

Interesting (none / 0) (#153)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:50:26 PM EST

Then, this was a speech to molify the base....

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

Parent

I just remembered something (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:58:21 PM EST

I was reading the other night about how many of the budget cuts previously agreed to have ended up being reconciled by a bunch of previously government funded programs that were never used being reabsorped. I'll bet the military has itself of lot of some of that. Now they won't be happy about coughing any of it up because I think they have a special loophole where they can use funds designated for one thing to be used for something else. But I bet the Pentagon is sitting on a huge pile of such funds that they were supposed to use for things in the past that they did not. There is most likely a huge one time windfall there.

Parent

Some of the $39 billion (none / 0) (#188)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:12:56 PM EST

in cuts from the deal last Friday came from $1-2 billion allocated for the census--in 2010???

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

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

Parent

: From a bookkeeping perspective (5.00 / 1) (#202)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:24:36 PM EST

it is very good to clear out these "abandoned" accounts, and get our debt down in any way in the process. They aren't doing the U.S. taxpayer any good just sitting on the books with their funds in them and providing no service.

Parent

About as good a speech one would expect (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:38:13 PM EST

coming from a centrist democrat president considering the current state of things.

IMO (none / 0) (#178)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:08:20 PM EST

it was a much better speech than one would expect coming from a centrist president.

Parent

I am greatly relieved (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:39 PM EST

He spent a lot of time sounding general Democratic principles.....

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

Parent

: Makes me think they're looking at (none / 0) (#207)
by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:28:21 PM EST

some internal numbers and decided he needed to rally the base; I read the speech (I could "hear" it in my head), and while he said a lot I can agree with - don't faint - I don't trust it, not even a little. I'm starting to feel like this is the "I love you" before we get, um, screwed.
He is - as most of those whipping deficit/debt hysteria are - wrong about that whole issue; he's a smart guy, and should understand that the only constraints we have on spending are self-imposed. He's wrong about the wisdom of cutting spending at such a fragile economic time: austerity may work on a micro/household budget basis, but it just does not work on a macro basis. And we're going to find out why that's so, I'm afraid.
For those who weren't alarmed by the speech, I do think it's important to consider the implication of his embrace of the Deficit Commission; as much as he says he intends to protect - but strengthen - Social Security, for example, I believe the Commission report discussed income-indexing, which, if implemented, could seriously and negatively affect people's ability to live out their days in anything approaching comfort.
I think there's a lot - a lot - of wiggle room in that speech; I know that it sounds so reasonable to call for "coming together" and getting everyone's "good ideas," but we've seen this movie before and it didn't end happily ever after.
It was a speech; we'll see how well the actions live up to it.

Parent

Good to hear. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:19:08 PM EST

I wasn't able to watch or listen.

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

Parent

: This also sounds pretty good... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:25:44 PM EST

"I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society," Obama said in his speech. "I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs."

Parent

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

Bull$hit, Bull$hit, Bull$hit

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

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

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

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

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

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

: It's (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:15:59 PM EST

a speech. All he's doing is talking. That's why it is called a speech.

Parent
: Ah, so hes not calling for a tax (none / 0) (#158)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:12 PM EST

increase on the wealthy now?
The plan must be cut entitlements and promise not to extend the Bush tax cuts again. Bwahaha.

Parent

What a wonderful speech. (5.00 / 2) (#169)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:58:18 PM EST

It reminded me of FDR. I can't wait to support whatever comes out of the negotiations.

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

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

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

complete sync on this!

Parent

: I wish I could navigate there... (none / 0) (#208)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:28:49 PM EST

since the change, I can't search, can't find anything!

Parent

Krugman on the Speech (5.00 / 1) (#212)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:39:36 PM EST

"Style: I liked the way Obama made a case for government at the beginning. I liked the way he accused Republicans of pessimism, of abandoning a hopeful vision of America. Good that he went after the Ryan plan -- and good that he went after the cruelty of that plan. If you ask me, too many percentages. Oh, and whichever speechwriter came up with "win the future" should be sent to count yurts in Outer Mongolia.

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

. . .

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

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

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

only four American flags as the backdrop. (none / 0) (#1)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:12:42 PM EST

That's a move in the right direction. Seems like one would be sufficient, but the Bush years led to a 'more is better' type of flag approach.

I saw on CNN yesterday (none / 0) (#6)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM EST

a Republican candidate for Texas Governor advocating secession and specifically stating that he hated the U.S. flag .....and that it should come down from government buildings in Texas so that only the Texas flag would fly.....

Parent

You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45:31 PM EST

I'm glad that all of this is finally coming to the forefront and that the rest of country is finally seeing what we in the south have been seeing for quite a while.

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

Parent

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

That is just sick.

Parent

Yup--but it was not a major (none / 0) (#14)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48:35 PM EST

candidate....but another Republican candidate for governor talked about secession.

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

Parent

You want a laugh? (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:51:30 PM EST

A friend of mine who I used to work with moved from Texas to GA and they called her child a Yankee at school.

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

Parent

Even Joan Baez romanticized (none / 0) (#108)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:29:32 PM EST

the loss by the South---"The day they drove Old Dixie Down."

Parent

Robbie Robertson wrote it (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:41:57 PM EST

for The Band. I don't hear it as a romanticized version of the South. I've always heard it as a southerner's lament, but not a universal one at all.

Parent

: Far from universal... (none / 0) (#148)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:47:21 PM EST

my ancestors were still in europe then. If they do a song "The Night They Drove The Kaiser Down," well, that's different ;-)

Parent
: "They took only the best" (none / 0) (#159)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:28 PM EST

"...until a yankee laid him in his grave...."
There is tendency to romanticize lost causes....

Parent

Hmm (none / 0) (#3)
by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:29:43 PM EST

I forgot it was a daytime speech.

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

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

you know how this will go

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

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

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

whitehouse.gov

Parent

Quotes Augustine: (none / 0) (#21)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:53:59 PM EST

"There but for the Grace of God go I."

Good general defense of government spending....

Okay, now some specifics....

Tax cuts Suck (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:58:22 PM EST

Good Obama. Without all these crazy tax cuts we would have negligible debt.

Deficit reduced (none / 0) (#27)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:58:24 PM EST

by agreement three times during 90s. All three agreements asked for shared responbility.

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

This sounds good so far....

Citicizing tax cuts aS increasing the deficit.

Cross your fingers, this is good so far.

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

I know, I'm getting excited (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:00:51 PM EST

This is when he always walks right on my face though, either how he ends this speech or right after the Republicans attack him about this speech.

Parent

: Look, this is obvious theater. (none / 0) (#37)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:04:58 PM EST

Saying "tax increases" now that the GOP controls the House is a sop to the idiots who think Obama stands to the left of Newt Gingrich. He already said he wanted higher tax rates, but only AFTER he agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts.
There's only one way to read what he's saying, if it's being reported accurately, and that is: buy cat food futures.

Parent

Even after the economy recovers (none / 0) (#31)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:01:06 PM EST

we will still have big deficits......

Anyone else not like the light tone (none / 0) (#35)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:04:08 PM EST

he's taking? He must have gone to AU so he could lecture to undergraduates.

But that's just griping, not criticism.

: Here he comes baby boomers (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:05:15 PM EST

He's coming after you right now

Parent

Ryan budget would lead (none / 0) (#42)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:06:58 PM EST

to a fundamentally different America--in my lifetime or perhaps in history of America.

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

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

"so far"

Parent

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

that I disagree with.

The Debt commission (none / 0) (#57)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:13:51 PM EST

He has openly embraced the Debt commission but we really don't know exactly what that means.

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

Here come the specifics....

Not really :) (none / 0) (#63)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:16:10 PM EST

Nothing specific

Parent

Where defense spending always has you? (none / 0) (#137)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:39:48 PM EST

The next Libya will cause you to unload billions before you (as a tax payer and a voter) even get to know about it. To cut defense on a budget level you have to go in on the contractor level and dump contracts. If he was serious about this I would think he would have had time to get a rundown of defense contracts that were going.

Parent

: Precisely. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:44:19 PM EST

cutting defense means going after, say, the Boeing Tanker contract...if B-52s will last till 2050, why not those 707 (KC135's)? What about all of the KBR/Halliburton crap?
We used to have cooks and bakers, and we used to have military logistics, among other things. These have been 'outsourced.'
Ohhh... I hope I don't wind up kicking in the television out of sheer frustration from this fluff.

Parent

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

Will work with Gates on those.

: and when that doesn't happen, (none / 0) (#73)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:19:04 PM EST

does that mean $400 billion cut from entitlements?
Is the GOP willing to cut that amount from defense? Are Dems?
You know, Obama can't be a "mediator" who doesn't take any active role (supposedly), and then be a leader the next day. The cognitive dissonance is jarring, and makes me think he's not serious.

Parent

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

End the speech now!

Now Healthcare (none / 0) (#67)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:16 PM EST

reducing cost of healthcare. My appproach will build on HCR reforms.

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

Save $500 billion by 2023.

No vouchers with shrinking benefits.

So... let's take control out of (none / 0) (#68)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:24 PM EST

the government, and give it to some undefined independent commission... I can hear "death panel" already.

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

oversee further cuts to medicare.

Groovy.

He is now saying nice things (none / 0) (#71)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:18:58 PM EST

But is so dispassionate. He seems medicated. Everything gets lost when you aren't really selling ANYthing.

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

be medicated...

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

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

I'll read it and see what I think.

Parent

: Somehow reading the speeches (none / 0) (#187)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:12:21 PM EST

make them so passive IMHO. At least watching him adds some color to the speech. Well anyway, we did get cool.

Parent

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

I'll take that, I think....

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

Utter sellout.

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

political PR.

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

Parent

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

Parent

No hit to Medicare (none / 0) (#84)
by MKS on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:23:02 PM EST

Just a dodge to a commission of doctors.....

Good dogded a bullet....

Verdict (none / 0) (#89)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:27 PM EST

Well he's set a standard to judge him by. The speech itself gave me what I wanted in terms of tax policy, cuts to defense and tone. He had to put entitlements on the table but he protected the seniors and baby boomers, which I think is the most important part.

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

That's what I voted for.

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

Why should only current seniors and (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:30:40 PM EST

boomers be protected?? People under 55 don't count??

Parent

: because as the baby boomers (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by ding7777 on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:01:47 PM EST

begin dying in huge numbers, the echo boomers will stabilize the system for the Gen X'ers

Parent

Debt fail-safe (none / 0) (#91)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:24:51 PM EST

If we haven't hit targets by 2014, we'll make more spending cuts and reductions in the tax code.

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

December 2010 made all this a joke.

Seriously, this is Through the Looking Glass stuff.

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

First reports seem quite positive (none / 0) (#144)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:45:34 PM EST

No chance to listen or read, myself.

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

surprisingly so

Parent

You should (5.00 / 2) (#186)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:11:44 PM EST

but some of the impact (for me anyway) came from the suspense and anxiety of waiting for him to say "but."

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

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

Parent

: Excellent, thanks (5.00 / 2) (#189)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:14:12 PM EST

I read that he drew a line in the sand on extending the tax cuts again. Of course, I don't quite believe him, but that's surely something we can try to hold him to. It could be a huge win.

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

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

Parent

Whose reports? (none / 0) (#193)
by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:15:08 PM EST

Anybody on the liberal/lefty side of the scale? or just the usual suspects lapping it up?

Parent

Soneone please tell Eric Cantor (none / 0) (#175)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:05:09 PM EST

That President Obama hasn't been in office long enough or had enough political experience to be "vintage" anything other than maybe being Vintage Ameircan or Vintage person of color. What an idiot, get a new speech writer Cantor.

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

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

is Amurican. That's something.

Parent

Note to the Pirate Crew: (none / 0) (#185)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:11:01 PM EST

I volunteer to be the Pirate Crew Expeditionary Force Advance Party. Starting this summer, after August. Ex Mrs. Jeffinalabama has offered to advise and direct in Colombia, and I'll be contacting friends all over the Spanish Main and Caribbean.

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

Parent

I think it's time to move on... (none / 0) (#204)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:25:04 PM EST

and this speech just makes it that much easier to decide.

Parent

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

Parent

A Speech | 214 comments (214 topical)

A Speech

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal