Presidential Presser

Atrios found this nifty embed:

[Sorry everyone, but the video plays automatically and until I can figure out how to change the embed code, it has to be deleted -- TL. Update: The link is here.]

Calls for increased taxes on oil companies and jet plane owners. Not a bad political gambit, but in the end, he has to show resolve in the negotiation. In answer to a question on GOP cooperation, President says "Call me naive." Ok, you're naive.

< Is It Too Late Now? | Sixth Circuit Upholds Individual Mandate In ACA As Constitutional >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, that's funny (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TJBuff on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    He expects the Republicans to be reasonable.  Like his BFF Alan Simpson.

    Bringing a donut to a gun fight (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    He will watch and have a snack

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:10:39 AM EST
    C.H.A.R.L.A.T.A.N. (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    Call it what it is, Tent.  It is lip service, the same thing he gives to EVERYthing a progressive might want.  

    His words, at this point, mean absolutely phucking nothing.  I want to pummel him with a sock of horse manure.  

    This is a pitifully psychologically addled guy without the slightest clue he suffers from such an ailment.  In other words...he is utterly clueless.

    Sad and a complete waste of potential and the nation's immmediate future.  

    It is absolutely logical and rational at this point for progressives to thinks that the ONLY way to get Obama to act in a manner beneficial to the country is to threaten to abandon him en masse.  

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    last sentence is the key. Until people start making it perfectly clear they are not willing to vote for him until he gets a spine and say they are willing to suffer until Romney for four years to make that point maybe then he will get a clue.

    Honestly, we are going to suffer for four more years no matter what happens in '12.


    I for one (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    am not willing to suffer through Romney for 4 years, or put the rest of my country through that, just to teach Obama a lesson.

    As a country we will suffer significantly more, and not just for the next 4 years, if we elect Romney, or any other GOP candidate for president.  YMMV.


    Totally Disagree (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    So great, we get four years of light republican instead of moderate republican.  You are right, those four years will be tougher, but what about after that ?

    At what point do we, the voters, let our elected officials know they aren't meeting out expectations, because if we play the power game, they are going to do whatever they want, because they have your vote already counted.

    My vote is up for grabs, if crazy hits the streets, I will vote, otherwise I am on the couch.  Obama has not earned my vote, and I will be damned if I play this silly game of voting for the least destructive to make the next four a little easier.

    Enough people start using their vote as it was meant to be used, and stop putting so much importance on power, GWB would have never gotten a second term, and IMO the GOP would be a lot better off had that happened.  

    Obama is ruining our brand name, and I for one am not going to be an accomplice, unless it means keeping a lunatic out of the White House.

    Voting for Obama will only re-enforce that we are far more concerned about power than policy, that we are no better than the idiots across the isle that gave GWB four more.


    i completely disagree (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    I'm voting for Obama because I am concerned about policy, and I think he will enact better policy than the other guy.

    I have no concerns about democratic branding or any illusions that electing republicans is good for democrats or the nation in the long term.

    Short term pain - like our nice little experiment with the compassionate conservative bush, has a way of transforming into long term pain.

    I am much more worried about the ledge we are sitting on as a country right now than I am with democratic party branding.  I don't know that we can handle 4 or 8 or however many years of president romney.  I don't feel like Obama is actively trying to destroy the middle class the way a president romney or bachman would.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    that Romney might actively try to destroy the middle class but Obama is passively destroying the middle class with his adherence to supply side economics. So either way the middle class loses.

    And when exactly do you hold Obama accountable? If he wins he's going to continue these failed policies because you will be rewarding him for listening to Geither. The way I see it, either way it's a lose/lose proposition. And then there's the whole abuse thing. How long are you willing to be called names before you stand up and say I'm not taking it anymore. I've never seen a President who relished stomping on the very people who worked so hard for him.


    and who exactly (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    will be holding the GOP accountable for their actions?

    I don't see this as a reward for Obama - I could give a $hit about him personally.  I see this as critical to the survival of our country.

    If you view it as a reward, you are essentially saying you are rewarding Romney for not being Obama.  But for some reason, it's only a reward if it's a vote for Obama, and you don't see it being in any way affirmative for the GOP if they get elected.  I find that to be.. a very conflicted idea.

    Bottom line, I will vote for the person I think will do the best job as president.  Right now, of all the candidates running, that person is Obama.


    That's (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    why I keep saying 2010 is a lose/lose proposition. The middle class will lose no matter who wins.

    We have 9% unemployment in this country. I could really say that NO ONE currently in office whether they have a D or an R by their name should be rewarded.


    But you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    have no leverage with Obama if you say that you're going to vote for him no matter what.

    You're essentially saying that he can do whatever he wants, produce any inept policy that actually hurts the middle class in this country and you'll still vote for him.

    It's a hard argument to make against the GOP when Obama is basically agreeing to their agenda.


    and your leverage with him (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    Is what exactly?

    I guess I should also clarify that while I am not happy with everything Obama has done, I do not for a second accept the tl conventional wisdom that he is advancing a strictly republican agenda.


    How nice for you ... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:04:53 PM EST
    and your belief systems.

    But, your beliefs aside, there is nothing even marginally left of center about his economic policy.  Certainly nothing of the left in his foreign policy.  And on civil liberties he's the neo-con poster child.

    I don't know how you categorize a "Republican agenda", but he clearly supports an agenda that is significantly right of center.

    He's gonna win.  Because he's the establishment candidate.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that voting for him protects anyone from right wing policies.  We've got them now.


    He (none / 0) (#195)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:49:38 PM EST
    Does not support a left of center agenda. That is disprovable in so many ways it is not worth it.

    Cruise a conservative blog and hear what right of center really looks like. I am beginning to think that the issue is that people don't really understand what the center is because they base their center on their own beliefs.

    By any objective standard, Obama is to the left and has proven so repeatedly.


    Freudian slip? (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:29:28 PM EST
    If you are judging Obama's policy decisions based on some sort of knee jerk reaction to what conservatives are saying then you aren't really dealing with the issues.

    On most issues, he is conservative. He's certainly conservative on civil liberties and the economy.


    Right I meant (none / 0) (#196)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:50:01 PM EST
    Not actively (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    supporting it but letting the GOP set the agenda is a distinction without a difference.

    not on a lot of issues (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    It's not a distinction without a difference if you need extended unemployment benefits, or if you need a job in the auto industry, or if you are gay and in the military, or if you have a case going to the supreme court, or any number of issues.

    I see a lot of differences there.


    I asked myself this question (none / 0) (#143)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    yesterday.  I don't think Ga6th has any leverage over Obama.  She says she's in a red state anyway.  And I doubt Obama would do something that would make her not only vote but organize for her.  Plus one vote is just one vote.

    I think the blogosphere as a whole has an opportunity in the next few months to not just vent about their frustrations (which I gather Netroots Nation was largely about this year) but to make demands for the future.  I think Obama will need online enthusiasm again for 2012.  He will need social media (the fact that SCOTT BROWN had a better social media showing than the Dem candidate in the Mass race was sad), and he will need donations.  So I think a place like DailyKos does have some leverage over the President.

    He (and/or) his staffers are going to come crawling back to the blogosphere.  I think they have to.


    Since I'm a neighbor of Ga6th, (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    I am tired, tired, TIRED! of marginalization because of where I live. liburro, you aren't doing it, but the dems are. Except when they are pimps for money.

    I am so sick of the mainstream democrats, such as those seen on GOS, who continually denigrate southern democrats.

    I think living as a southern democrat influences why I hold liberal policies so closely, as does Ga6th, and Militarytracy.

    WE ARE ON THE FRONT LINE. We are actively fighting, just by being in the south, interacting with the populace, doing community organizing, changing opinions, or at least ameliorating extremism.

    We Southern Liberals still hold to the true ideals of liberalism. When some Johnny-Come-Lately Chicago pol (and here, Rahm comes to mind, not Obama) cracks wise, I am insulted. When liberal issues are abandoned or denigrated, I become engaged.

    We are the boots on the ground. And just like the military, we're portrayed as slow, stupid, undereducated, no-tooth idiots.

    Yeah. it wears on me.


    I didn't realize the stress I was under when (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    I lived in Seattle....in Chicago...

    Thanks for explaining it.



    The Whole Foods (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    crowd is beyond annoying. That condescending attitude is what turns so many people off of the party.

    I'll be the first to admit that divide and conquer has worked very well for the GOP down here but I don't know how much longer that kind of thing is going to happen simply because the south has suffered more economically as whole than any other part of the country.

    And the irony of it all is that people down here probably depend on Medicare and Medicaid more than other part of the country I'd bet.


    with all due respect (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    Ga6th has said repeatedly that their "vote doesn't matter" because of where they live - so it's not like we are the ones saying you "have no leverage"

    Honestly, we see this in blue states too, where we "don't matter" because you assume it will always go one way.  But the thing is, it always matters.  Even if you don't win, people look at margins, there are other issues on the ballot.  Look at Scott Brown - anything can happen.

    I will admit, I am sometimes frustrated with the south.  I have no hope of engaging southern Republicans, and that's who keeps showing up in Washington to represent you.

    Northern Liberals also hold to those ideals, but we don't need to hold them so hard because we practice them, in our state, and they are effective.  I agree that it does make you somewhat more willing to compromise because you are starting on a better plane.

    But I get it.  It's how I feel when people talk about "real America", as if we somehow no longer have any real concerns, just because we like to ride trains and bikes and invest in education.  Not everything up here comes on a silver platter either, we had to fight and make sacrifices for those things too.


    the perfect example (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    of one of my "frustrations" is on the 2nd amendment.

    I get that people in other parts of the country want to have their guns to go hunting or target practice or what have you.  That's cool, I have no problem with that.

    But I feel like there is zero recognition on the national stage (or caring for that matter) of the fact that up north, in major cities, guns (especially hand guns) are used to kill people - and that's about it.

    But bringing this up, or mentioning that maybe we should have background checks, or the fact that guns abound and are way too easy to get - makes us somehow less American.

    I feel like people in the rest of the country just don't give a $hit about all the dead kids in cities.  Because we're all arugula eating rich hippies or gangsters on wellfare - we have no legitimate concerns.


    The only leverage I (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:49:38 PM EST
    have with the Obama campaign is not donating money and I've been an party donor for quite a while now. I won't be donating this year. I don't think that it will matter anyway. The banksters will reward Obama and fill up his campaign chests.

    No single person's vote (none / 0) (#167)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    is "leverage."  My vote, however, happens to be precious to me (as I'm sure yours is to you).  And my days as an automatic Democratic vote* are over.  But using one's vote as leverage only works in aggregate.  When a candidate sees him/herself losing votes in droves, attention will be paid.  A few votes here or there (either for OR against) are meaningless.

    Well, I suppose it's also leverage in a very tight race, but I digress.

    And while my vote is meaningful to me, what is more meaningful to a candidate is donations and volunteers.  And I mean dedicated volunteers.  Canvassing and phone banking are tedious and exhausting and thankless, but they're critical to getting out the vote.  And when those volunteers withdraw their hours of work and their advocacy, that's more than just one vote lost.  

    This campaign season I'm going to be having a lot more time on my hands.  More money, too.  That's important because I'm making less than I was 10 years ago.

    I'll still be going to the polls, but voting top of the ballot is highly unlikely.

    One more thing, though.  You said:

    I don't think Ga6th has any leverage over Obama.  She says she's in a red state anyway.

    That very same thing could be said of a solidly blue community: that one person's vote or non-vote doesn't matter.  But if it doesn't matter why even bother voting at all?  Why not just conduct polls and declare the winner without all that messy standing-in-line stuff?

    * I was going to say "as a yellow dog democrat" but I was actually afraid some people might confuse that color with blue.


    Funny thing (none / 0) (#174)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    I didnt know ga6th was a woman until right now.

    Funny how our biases work.


    Seriously ? (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    "Calls for increased taxes on oil companies and jet plane owners."

    This is something I expect a third grader to produce.  I mean really, are there 1000 people who jets, 10,000 ?  That outta help us to cover that extra day in a leap year.  Genius.

    And oil companies, now ?  They probably wet themselves when they heard this.  They will whip out their tried and true, "This will force us to pass the costs along to our customers" and that will be the end of that.  Where was Obama when they were handing out subsidies, even if he managed to increase their taxes, it would be  money he should have axed last month.

    I get the feeling that Obama is parroting the republicans so closely, that he actually thinks those are some sort of dog whistle for democrats.

    That garbage is such weak lip service, that lip service just sent Obama a cease and desist order.  It doesn't want Obama denigrating it's reputation.


    Actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    The owners of jets, if thy increase their tax rates, could cover a whole bunch.

    They make as much money as the rest of us combined based on some metrics.


    If he includes (none / 0) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    the lessors, also, some of the, what do they call them, concierge services, it could capture a lot. However, could the concierge services say their airlines and still get the discounts?

    I Get That (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    But we aren't taxing their wealth, we are taxing their income, and that is a drop in the bucket in regards to the money we need.  How much money is a 1% tax increase on billionaires going to generate ?  Never mind the fact that he actually had a chance to do it in January, and took a pass.

    What's next, taxing people who own Ferrari's, or have butlers ?  It's a riduculous metric, even in jest.

    Just seems like a grasp from a desperate man.  Actually, seems like something a someone might say on the plane ride home after losing a fortune on a four day bender in Vegas.  Vague non-sense from a man out of ideas.


    It is like (none / 0) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    when... was it Clinton? put on the luxury taxes on yachts and boats, and US production declined precipitously. Why buy here if a Greek or Spanish yacht was cheaper?

    Don't think it was Clinton (none / 0) (#84)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    but might have been... It hut the industry bad. People build them things.

    I have a tooling vender that also serves the light aircraft industry....
    These are perishable skills with decent wages. Technology drivin. We need to do these things here.


    It was Carter (none / 0) (#92)
    by BTAL on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    And your example is correct, it takes many people/jobs to build and maintain yachts/jets than rich people to buy them.  Carter practically killed that industry in the U.S.

    ty, I remembered it was a Dem, just (none / 0) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    not which.

    Here's the irony about timing... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    As oil stocks decline, their profits are declining somewhat because of less demand. So...as the need drops, and the energy companies are getting market pressure downward, closing loopholes becomes important...

    A year ago, two years ago, six months ago, 90 days ago...

    but today?

    May as well talk about the dangers of fluoridation in water.

    It would be nice if he'd mention tire pressures again, as well as drinking tap water in most places... believe it or not, those have a big impact. the repubs made him sound foolish, but everyone driving with properly inflated tires could have a 1-2 percent impact on gas use, iirc. then the draw would go down, and prices stay the same, maybe rise again, but at least something positive could come out of it.


    Jeff (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:09:36 PM EST
    Don't forget, we just decided they needed subsides like 4 weeks ago, now what, tax them and for the subsidies he was too scared to stop.

    Ditto for taxing the rich, he had a chance to go for it and he punted.  Now we are to believe he is going to do something about it, it's pathetic, approaching 'Mission Accomplished' pathetic IMO.

    Next he'll be talking about reeling-in Wall Street or closing Gitmo, just more failure he claims to be compromise.

    I could be more forgiving and have a lot more respect if he actually put up a good fight and lost.  But this business, is just plain sad.

    Next up, Obama gives them everything they want in regards to the debt ceiling.

    I'm just glad Obama wasn't President in '62, because Khrushchev would have sent half the Russian nuclear arsenal to Cuba, and Obama would have called it a fair compromise.


    Clarification request? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    For argument's sake, I'll assume that the proposal (aka gambit) about corporate jet taxes, gas & oil taxes, and millionaires plus taxes could have been or should have been earlier....

    Nonetheless, here we are. Looking from today forward then, do you favor or do you oppose the increase in revenue approach that the President discussed today in terms of the corporate jets situation, the gas & oil boys situation, & the m/billionaires situation? In general?  (I ask because--when the rubber hits the road or whatnot--we, as a society, tend to back off those taxes that sound appealing in brainstorming, etc.)


    It's Not Even an Something I Will Ponder (none / 0) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    If he was serious, he would have raised taxes when he had the chance instead of extending the Bush tax cuts.

    And the oil non-sense is even worse, no fight at all over subsidies to the same ones he is claiming should pay more.  Even if he is got his way, it would be retrieving the subsidies we just gave them.

    It's a bunch of BS, like me backing down from a fight, then an later telling my boys I was going to kick his A.

    Personally, this debt nightmare could be solved by raising everyone taxes, hit the rich a little harder, but going back to Clinton era tax rates doesn't seem extreme to me.  And I would slice DoD in half, eliminate the DEA, TSA, and reel in every agency that is operating outside our borders except for State.  Cancel Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and any other military endeavor.  They will protect our borders and defend any helpless Nation, they will cease to spread hypocrisy, I mean democracy.

    Then set my sites on Wall Street, prosecute the criminals, and fine the hell out of the clowns who took us to the brink.  then chop them all into pieces until they are once again failable.  Any investing scheme that works only because a few people understand it, will be illegal.  leverage will be capped.

    After that, tax foreign labor to the point of making American labor competitive, tax companies for the privilege of operating outside our borders(call it a military tariff) because now, our military is subsidizing their operations by providing free security.

    Then I would put a couple million dollar reward for the Dick Cheney's balls, double if they are ripped off, triple if Dog the Bounty Hunter does it on camera.  Rumsfeld and Yoo might go on that list as well.


    Even he is mumbling "Win the Future" now (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:05:31 AM EST

    I guess the WTF (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    acronym doesn't seem so funny to them now.  And don't tell me that no one there knew of the typical use.  I've thought from the beginning that it was chosen deliberately as yet another thumbing of the nose at all us computer-owning blog-reading know-nothings.

    In the end, the joke wasn't on us after all.  Frankly, in the end, the joke just wasn't that funny.


    They did ... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    it's more of that Ivy League sense of humor that runs rampant in the administration.  They really should save that crap for reunions.

    Madmen of our own? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    Some optimism from the fact that Senate Democrats are talking about the debt ceiling itself being unconstitutional. I don't know the law on this and I don't really trust some of the media's experts to know either, despite their willingness to give their opinion.

    But at least it shows some smidgen -- weak but extant -- of creative negotiation on the part of the left, sort of their own version of the madman theory of bargaining. If the debt ceiling can be ignored and tied up in the courts for the next couple years that would give the GOP a reason to try to get a deal now.

    Ezra Klein is against the tactic.

    On the pessimistic side, President Obama is still using the "win the future" phrasing. Give it up, man! It's a terrible phrase! Throw the advisor or speechwriter pushing it on you into the Anacostia and be done with it.

    Ezra Klein needs to be... (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    ...folded up into a little origami swan, then pushed into an onrushing tsunami.

    What kind of amuses me, in a (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    dark humor kind of way, is that this particular part of the 14th Amendment has been talked about on blogs for months now, and all of a sudden, Congressional Democrats are just now "discovering" it?  Gives me hope that they could find their butts with both hands, after all.

    Which would be fine if that's what we needed them to do, or if that was a good use of their time and our money, but really, what good are these people?

    As for Ezra, I don't care one iota what he thinks; he just needs to just go away.  I like Dadler's idea for his send-off, a lot.


    To be clear about Ezra's objection... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    ...he thinks it may be the correct legal intepretation and may "work" in terms of getting a favorable deal, but he's worry about the market reaction and that the plan will "fail terribly in terms of sustaining the market's confidence".

    You know those old Looney Tunes where the Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote would both run across an abyss, but the Roadrunner would get to the other side, while Wile E. would look down and fall? That's sort of where we are with the markets. Right now, they're confident that we'll get everything under control, even though our finances are a mess and our political system is as paralyzed and gridlocked as it's been in modern times. They're the Roadrunner, in other words. In that context, the debt ceiling isn't just about paying our bills. It's about keeping the market from looking down.

    I question the wisdom of someone who thinks that this would be the action that reduced the market's (such as it is a singular entity) confidence in our political system. I mean, if it hasn't happened yet, I think it's a little ridiculous to invoke that scare tactic here -- seems like Ezra Klein trying to be "serious" to me than a coherent argument. Does Klein really think investors won't still try to make money in the market after the Federal government has indicated it intends to go on spending and thus stimulating the economy? Not to mention cutting taxes (or keeping open loopholes) on corporations is more likely if there's no debt ceiling.

    So a pretty weak argument from Ezra Klein, in my opinion -- the government is clearly a mess, this wouldn't substantially change the degree to which it is a mess. And furthermore I don't see why the markets would be weeping over a blown up federal debt ceiling.


    I'm inclined to think it's stenography, (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    mainly because it's the same kind of message that's being pushed on the nightly network news; it's expanded from the "normal" deficit hysteria to include analysts making dire predictions about the down-rating of US debt, the effect the loss of confidence will have on the markets, and so on.

    I feel like they're trying to brainwash the people about the debt ceiling (and the deficit) in much the same way - and for much the same reason - they pushed the Iraq war: because the fix is in, and this is just about getting us used to the idea that we're going to suffer one way or another, so we should trust them to choose for us.  A resigned and demoralized populace is more manageable in the dog days of summer than an angry and agitated one, you know?

    Makes me so mad I could spit.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    A weak argument.  But is it his or his stenography from his Administration sources?  The timidity of the argument sounds like it came from Tim.

    See Amend 14, Sec 4 (none / 0) (#187)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    which seemingly directly prohibits questioning the "validity of the public debt" when "authorized by law." Since, as the President notes, the Congress heretofore had authorized the debt (by voting for it), the argument would be--I'm guessing--that that authorization (debt authorization) is valid unless Congress somehow replaces the authorization with something else. Maybe that is the fiction of the "debt ceiling."

    I like the approach too. Yet, the real decider here is the public...and, based on a lot of soundings we've all been hearing about, john & jane q. public doen't look to be in the mood for "legalisms."  That is why, IMO, the opening & closing juxtaposition of the "rich guys" tax breaks with what john/jane q. would lose at home if the moneybags won't budge or relinquish a bit may have a strong pull here.


    Oh yes, and he said that he thinks the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    Republicans will not be mad men this time and he invited me to call him naive, so I'm calling him naive.

    Naive is far too nice and inapproapriate (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    So stupid as to be lacking any and all rational credibility, this would be more apt.  As would, "So Michelle IS growing some Maui Wowie in that backyard garden.  Bong or joints?"

    I'd also ask why the room didn't burst out into full-throated laughter at his naive challenge.  One can only surmise that the rest of the room are PART of the joke rather than reporting on it.


    He just announced that we are having at least (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:24:01 AM EST
    a lost decade, he has a ten year window now on fixing the economy.

    He can only be Prez ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    for another five.  Nifty how that works out, ain't it?

    Disappointing presser (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    He really is both naive and politically inept. I've gone from disappointed expections to disappointed hopes against hopes, and now it's just a sense of hopelessness.

    He is no match for the Republicans.

    He is now being honest (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    that bipartisanship is not working. He says he's showing leadership though. He is showing boy scout leadership, he never realized he was entering a war zone though and that requires much different leadership. It requires smiling MoFo leadership when you have the power and the battlefield is yours, because every dog has his day and has his bad day too and his getting smoked day too. A very naive man.

    The positioning of (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    revenue lost because of rich guys' "selfish" approach opposite what could be done with that revenue for ordinary people (naming several examples) was quite adept, methinks.

    Wonder what ordinary people will think (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:50:30 PM EST
    when they realize that the Veep was dealing trillions in spending cuts, to services and jobs they need, to the GOPers, while the Prez was selling them on measly millions in revenue from jet owners?

    True statement (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    "He's done more to defend GLBT civil rights than any president in history. " - Obama, paraphrased


    Give you that one. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    He has.

    Now, let's get to job creation.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    I think we are paralyzed until we figure out the debt ceiling.  The GOP is going to take us to the wire unfortunately and we are going to have a month of the economy being pulled down by the uncertainty.

    It will not be fun.


    The minute Geithner said Aug 2 (none / 0) (#47)
    by TJBuff on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    that was foredoomed.

    Spoken like a true straight (none / 0) (#70)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    person with a sense of privilege.

    Or like (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    the most noted gay blogger on the internet.


    Try again.


    LOL (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan eh?  You really don't know anything about gay people do you?

    DK, at face value, ABG (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    is correct. Of course, that was an extremely low bar to jump over. But credit where it's due. Let's see how the end of DADT plays out.

    But it's a statement in a vacuum. (none / 0) (#76)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    It's ridiculous.  When you think of what a President could be saying and doing in this day and age, and comparing it against Obama's actions, it's completely pathetic.

    The boldest thing Obama has done on gay rights, IMO, was the decision to stop defending DOMA on constitutional grounds.  I give him lots of credit for that.  But his record otherwise has been mediocre, and there is no evidence but that the other positive steps taken were taken in spite of, but not because of, Obama's leadership.


    I know that (none / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    everyone gay I know has loved Obama since he repealed DADT and stopped enforcing DOMA.

    They could be just pretending to like him though.  Hard to say because I am not gay.  

    Anyway, many of his biggest critics in the gay community are now supporters:


    All I can give you are facts.


    BTW, DADT is still the ... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    law of the land.  It has not been repealed yet.

    The so-called "DADT repeal" occurred in December.  Six months later ... still no repeal.

    DADT enforcement and discharges continue.  


    You have to read the fine print on everything this administration says or does.  I'm frankly not convinced it will ever be repealed.  


    This is the process (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    That the repeal was always supposed to take. The end is coming. We'd all like it to be faster. but the goal was to end the practice, and that is now inevitable.

    Be nice if the world worked instantly, but this is what was required to get buy off by the military brass.

    If the argument you are making is "Obama sucks for not having this occur instantly" I see your point but think it is a really, really crappy one.


    But the (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    thing is it's still not repealed. It might never be repealed.

    Yup, and he could have ... (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    eliminated it by executive order.  But I guess that's a power he reserves for limiting Americans civil rights and launching illegal wars.

    I don't give people ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    credit for things they haven't yet done.

    Simple.  As.  That.


    You are not presenting facts. (none / 0) (#78)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    You are have provided links to two colunmnists who are presenting parts of the story.  

    Look, I'm not going to educate you on Obama's "gay problem."  That's part of the privilege so obviously on display in your repeated attempts to trot out gay rights as some big success of Obama.  It's pretty pathetic.

    I'm done with this, but for others out there I just wanted to make sure it was pointed out.


    I don't (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    know about you but my gay friends are really lukewarm towards Obama. It's not that they have any love for the GOP so much as Obama has been a disappointment. It's not like anything he's done has actually helped gay people in the red states.

    BTW, for anybody out there---Andrew Sullivan was a massive Bush apologist for years who became an Obama apologist.


    Shorter ABG: (none / 0) (#86)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    "Some of my best friends are gay."

    Ah well, so are some of mine, and mine think Obama is a complete dink. And right now they are much more concerned with holding on to their jobs -- if they have jobs -- then with DOMA and DADT. They don't expect Obama to be a leader on those issues (especially since he has said he won't be, by handing off all responsibility to the states on marriage.)


    Heh. It's even worse. (none / 0) (#96)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    It's "some of my best friends are gay, and my go-to gay for "facts" is Andrew Sullivan(!)".



    On LGBT issues (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    The only thing Obama has not do that is an LGBT issue is personally come out publicly in favor of gay marriage, correct?

    Everything else on the checklist is done.  

    Repealing DOMA would be impossible with a GOP congress, but I guess he's not done all he is supposed to do because he hasn't made a statement that will do nothing to actually change the law.

    And unless there is someone gay here who will give their opinions, we are all relying on second hand opinion right?

    But my second hand opinion is weaker because [fill in the blank with an unsupportable justification here].


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    The "checklist."  You can't make this stuff up!  :)

    Are you talking about the GOP (none / 0) (#113)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    congress that was in place from Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2011?  That GOP Congress?  I ask because you've been talking a lot about alternate realities in this thread.  

    My 2 cents (none / 0) (#114)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    as a gay lady, I'm pretty happy with Obama on LGBT issues.  I don't expect him to come out in favor of gay marriage before 2013.  DADT & not defending DOMA are the primary ways he earned my goodwill.  We did not get off to a great start due to among other things his choice of Rick Warren to pray at the Inauguration.  I think that was a bullsh*t move.

    Other than repealing DOMA, ENDA is a very very important item that remains on the national agenda.

    I do not care at all for Andrew Sullivan for a number of reasons.  I think Pam's House Blend is a great place to go to keep up on LGBT issues.

    Those are my 2 cents, I don't think they're necessarily more valid than a given straight person's, maybe slightly more.  Because I have given/am more likely to be involved and give $$ to gay causes than a straight person, etc.


    As a gay man, (none / 0) (#115)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    I'm actually not that far from you on that, lilburro.  Except, on DADT.  I think Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and the administration actually made the process more, rather than less, likely to occur.  I think repealing DADT was in the cards all along and there was essentially bi-partisan agreement to do it.  Probably the worst thing is that, despite that, Obama made it part of "The Deal".  In other words, while not needing to, he tied it to leaving in tax cuts for the rich (which, of course, is the prime example of the rightward drift of the Democratic leadership and Obama's overall failure as President, IMO).

    ENDA of course is a good example of where Obama could show that he really cares about gay civil rights, but there's zero evidence thus far of that happening.  

    There was much he could have done with respect to DOMA, etc. in his first two years, and he not only didn't do anything, but he actively supported DOMA in the courts.  The turnaround now is very good, though it really begs the question of why he didn't do more when he actually had the power to do so.

    He may or may not come out in support of gay marriage after the election, but if he does he'll have once again shown himself a follower instead of a leader.  Not the first time a politician did so, by any means, but IMO it certainly exempts him from going down in history as some kind of gay civil rights hero.


    With (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    DADT, I think the votes were there.  With repealing DOMA, the votes aren't there right now.  

    I would love to see Obama move on DOMA in the 2nd term but I am not sure if that will come to much.  I don't believe repealing DOMA is/was politically possible during this term so I don't hold that against him.  

    I hope ENDA passes before 2016.

    Gays have money and are pretty well-organized.  We also want very concrete things.  I think we are a great example of the FDR "make me do it" story.  Obama has been a cooperative and fairly empowering partner so far.  I think depending on how he deals with DOMA after 2012 he could be a bona fide gay civil rights hero.  DADT is pretty damn impressive though.  I would like to know the exact nature of the connection between DADT and the Deal.


    I don't think DADT (none / 0) (#144)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:29:31 PM EST
    was impressive for Obama, but it was impressive for Congress.  Of course, our Democratic leaders in congress has moved so far right on economics that they were probably as happy as the deal as the Republicans.

    Even if the votes were not there for DOMA while the Democrats held Congress, more support from Obama during that period really would have moved the ball forward.  I think there's clear evidence he is not an advocate.  Instead, he was a follower.  

    I don't really see any evidence of how he's empowered gay people; gay people seem pretty empowered on their own (as you say, certain sections of the gay community have a lot of money, and, as the situation in NY showed, there are an increasing number of republicans with money who are in favor of gay rights now too).  To be honest, the rich gay republican supporters are really stronger gay rights advocates than Obama is at this point, IMO.  True that it's less likely, say, that a Romney would sign ENDA than an Obama, but it's hard to say if enough of the rich Republicans get on board and there are political reasons for someone like him to do so.  Not that I'm advocating Romney..just making the point that Obama is passive as far as gay rights are concerned, and there's not much about Obama that would make one think he's particularly necessary or active in the struggle.


    Obama put the ball in motion (none / 0) (#151)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    perhaps not as quickly as I wanted and as I thought he was going to but he did it.  I think he deserves credit.

    By empowering gay people I mean that the passage of DADT will do that.  Gays can and do serve and being homophobic means you are not supporting the people dying for your freedoms.  Of course that was already the case but at least homophobes can be further shamed by that.

    I really don't think Romney would sign anything positive about gay people, and I don't think he would go out of his way to advocate to strip rights from the glbt community, but I am not sure of that.  (He won't be getting my vote).


    Guess I see no evidence (none / 0) (#158)
    by dk on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    Obama put any balls in motion.  Without evidence that seems like wishful thinking.  Not that it fits with what is logical, but it seems like if anyone put the ball in motion on DADT was Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman.  It's odd to say, and I take no particular joy in saying in, but it doesn't make it any less true based on available evidence.

    Romney (or any Republican) won't be getting my vote, and Obama probably won't either, but neither are advocates for gay rights as far as I've seen so far.


    I went silent (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    On this discussion because the back and forth were so good.  Thanks for those perspectives DK and lilburro.

    Disagree with DK but appreciate the perspective.


    Good One (none / 0) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    "He's done more to defend GLBT civil rights than any president in history. "

    In history ?  Let's stick with in reality, that means he's better than GWB, Clinton, GHB, and maybe Ronny.  And he's better than GWB on transgender issue, quit the accomplishment.

    And although DADT is considered bad policy today, at the time it far more reaching than anything Obama has done IMO.  DADT got polluted when people ignored the "Don't Ask" aspect and forced people "To Tell".

    Obama can't even bring himself to endorse Gay Marriage, even for lip service to his own party who just so happens to endorse that policy.  He's fine with denying people equality, something Clinton would have never endorsed.


    except (none / 0) (#182)
    by CST on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    Clinton did endorse it, when he passed dadt.  It sure was far reaching...  more people got kicked out for being gay.  Which is somehow more progressive than not doing that.

    I am not going to argue about political realities - since things were different then.  Butu I do see a lot of hypocracy in defending Clinton on dadt while simulatiously bashing Obama on doma.  The political "realities" for those scenarios are pretty comparable.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:30:58 PM EST
    DADT was pretty far reaching for the time and Clinton started negotiating from the point of allowing gays in the military. If you don't like this policy, then it is a prime example of the downfalls of compromise. Prior to DADT, people were routinely kicked out of the military for being gay. If they were seen in a gay bar, they would be kicked out. If they were seen exhibiting anything the military would kick them out. No prior to DADT things were not wonderful on that front.

    I mean the country is past DADT at this point mostly because I think we are having multiple wars going on and the military needs soldiers to fight it.

    Frankly I find it literally hysterical that the GOP is talking about reinstating DADT when at the time you would have thought that the world had come to an end when it passed.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#185)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    marriage equality is not yet a plank in the Democratic Party platform.

    What's in the party platform is irrelevant (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    See: Reproductive rights.


    See: Stupak ammendment.


    Why does Boehner need the president? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    "If the president embraces a measure that meets these tests, he has my word that the House will act on it. Anything less cannot pass the House."

    Why does Boehner need the President to embrace anything for the House to pass it? The last I checked, Republicans had a majority in the house, and the President didn't have a vote there, nor did does he need to embrace legislation for it to be considered. So why can't Boehner just pass the bill he wants and dare Obama to veto it? Could it be he's unwilling to pass such a bill without the Democrat party's fingerprints on it? This has been the question that's stuck out like a sore thumb from the beginning.

    And of course the President help things encouraging Republicans by entering talks with them personally as they demanded.

    Holy bipartisan sh#t (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    He will show resolve on cutting (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:48:43 AM EST
    Medicare, most likely.

    That is what is being reported (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    For their part, Obama and Reid appear prepared to reach much higher, putting substantial Medicare savings on the table if Republicans would accept added revenues. With the House GOP leadership in New York, all of Monday's White House maneuvering was Senate-centric. But Obama's hope is that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), with whom he met privately last week, will be intrigued by a bolder package that might also help neutralize the Medicare issue now hurting the GOP among elderly voters. link

    According to this, not only is Obama willing to sell out seniors, he is willing to help the Republicans gain back support from this voting block.


    "Medicare savings" does not (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    equate to "cuts in benefits."  What the Dems and the administration have been talking about so far exclusively is paring back Medicare expenses, as in the huge subsidies to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage that are in the ACA.

    If you had to pay more in premiums (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    for your Medicare, that would represent a net cut in benefits to you, would it not?

    Paying more for the same benefit means you're getting less. Or at least I think that's how the math works.

    This is an idea that Dick Durbin, such a great friend to seniors, and other Dems now believe should be on the table.  But, not to worry, it's only for "the wealthy," or so they say.

    I would be careful not to accept so unconditionally that "savings" or "wealthy" mean the same to you as they do to the people who are going to be making the decisions; if we've learned nothing else, it should be that we clearly do not have the same edition of dictionary they do, and are only finding out the hard way that some words no longer mean what they used to.


    For numerous reasons, (none / 0) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    my mother has had to pay triple for medicine in the past 30 days. A serious injury, new meds, etc... On a fixed income, that isn't easy.

    Good thing we both like leftovers, just not the same leftovers for three days. Switch them around, add some gravy, it's something new.


    Or, as my husband sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    refers to leftovers, "used food."

    Medicare premiums go up every year (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    So I guess we have been getting less.

    Further to the issue of savings v. cuts: (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    First, let me start by saying that I'm aware that Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, and neither is Tom Coburn, and I'm further aware that their plan has been criticized, but the fact that the Dems have been unable to keep plans like Lieberman/Coburn off the table is troubling.

    Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) acknowledged that there's something in their Medicare plan for just about everyone to dislike. But they say it's necessary to bring the program under control.

    "Nobody's going to like this plan. We understand that," Coburn said at a press conference Tuesday as he and Lieberman rolled out their proposal.

    Most of the plan's savings would come from some form of benefit reductions or shifting costs to seniors -- a stark contrast to the Medicare cuts believed to be on the table in talks over the debt ceiling. Negotiators there are looking at cuts to healthcare industries after Democrats drew a line in the sand over benefit cuts.


    The proposal would cap seniors' out-of-pocket costs depending on their income. The maximum would be set at $7,500 for people making less than $85,000 per year. Seniors with twice as much income would pay three times more in out-of-pocket Medicare costs.

    Wealthy seniors also would pay more for their prescription drugs. Premiums only cover about 11 percent of the total costs for Medicare Part D, the senators said. They would require seniors to pay the full cost of their drug coverage. They said the change would free up between $5 billion and $10 billion in tax money.

    The plan also would increase premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers drugs that are administered by a doctor. Part B premiums are more than $400 per year, and taxes currently cover only about a quarter of that cost. High-income seniors would have to pay the full cost of their Part B premiums under the Lieberman plan.

    Both the changes to Part D and Part B premiums would only apply to seniors making more than $150,000 per year or couples making more than $300,000.

    As David Dayen points out:

    Democrats haven't been totally firm on anything but the idea of not ending Medicare and not privatizing Social Security. Everything else is up for grabs. They don't want to "slash" benefits to Social Security, but changes in the COLA by using chained CPI, which would result in a benefit cut, are on the table. They don't want to end Medicare, but they're open to cuts as long as they are attached to some minor revenue increases. They are concerned about senior health care, but they don't mind making fairly severe changes to a program that substantially benefits seniors: Medicaid. Included in those changes is one that comes from the policy shop of the White House:

    In the budget blueprint unveiled in April, President Barack Obama proposed adjusting the way federal matching funds paid to the states are calculated for Medicaid and its companion, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Sources close to the administration tell POLITICO that White House officials have been trying to develop the idea into a version that could become part of a deal in the ongoing deficit reduction talks [...]

    The administration wants to create what's known as a "blended rate" for these programs, recalculating the levels so states receive federal dollars at the same rate for all populations in joint state-federal health programs. And in the process, they want to contribute to Medicaid savings totaling $100 billion.

    This has Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) nervous.

    "What we know is that in order to generate `at least $100 billion' in savings, any blended-rate proposal would have to severely reduce federal Medicaid and CHIP payments to every state over time, with some losing a lot more than others," Rockefeller said. "And the underlying needs and costs don't disappear -- they just move from the federal side of the ledger to the state side."

    You can call it something antiseptic like a "blended rate" or "chained CPI," but the proposals are to give state Medicaid programs, or Social Security beneficiaries, less money over time. As long as Democrats don't end these programs, they feel comfortable starving them of funding.

    I think we should all be nervous, and very, very angry.


    Dems have not "exclusively" (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    talked about paring back Medicare expenses such as the huge subsidies to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage. In fact, Durbin, the number 2 Democrat, along with Sen. Warner and Sen. Conrad have gone on record as wanting to adopt the Cat Food Commission recommendation that raise the retirement age and implement a different calculation method that cuts benefits.

    And, further (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    means testing.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    How could I have left that out. Although people making $250,000 a year are too poor to pay more taxes, what do you want to bet that seniors with an income in the neighborhood of $25,000 - $40,000 will be considered rich enough to pay a lot more for Medicare.  

    That's on SS (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    Different subject

    Specific to Medicare (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    Expand cost-sharing in Medicare to promote informed consumer health choices and spending

    You pay more and get less equals a benefit cut to me.


    He hasn't got (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    a clue and he still hasn't learned how the GOP operates. He still thinks he's a senator and they're writing some bipartisan bill in the senate.

    Why is it the evil "oil companies" (none / 0) (#5)
    by me only on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    and not the good "banks," that we are calling on for more taxes?  I guess BP didn't donate enough to Obama's 2008 campaign.

    Because (none / 0) (#7)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    the banks are insolvent. Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone.

    So same sex marriage is going to be (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    observed in the military when the marriage took place in a state that recognizes and licenses it? He is the CIC, so he is going to change his DADT lifting implementation?

    Pick an issue (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    any issue and his stance on it will sound just as nonsensical as that one. I guess that's what comes from trying to have it both ways--it all just comes across as a bunch of gibberish.

    Wow...can you believe how he just (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    parsed that they won't be sending anyone they are hunting to Bagram either now. I guess he is really planning some drawdown. And if he is hunting you it isn't capture or kill, it is kill now and gain the intelligence....that's it.

    Regime change in Libya (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    is how he is protecting the people of Libya and how it is still nothing more than a humanitarian mission.

    The Confidence Fairy! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:25:23 AM EST

    And magical (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    unicorns who hold hands with unity ponies! We just need to sprinkle some more fairy dust around and hold hands and sing kumbaya and everything will just be wonderful and the plants will align and money will fall from the heavens...

    He seems to be facing how bad things are (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    economically, he knows we are in trouble now, and he's in trouble now. This is the most depressing presser I've ever watched of his though.

    How is he focusing on jobs? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    He says he is, where is the evidence?

    He's thinking deeply (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    about my pain.

    Feeling it?

    Not so much.


    Everything Obama is saying is wrong and terrible (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    Just wanted to keep the chain unbroken in its unity.

    [I am actually enjoying O's talk.  The part where he was like "I am displaying leadership . . . I have shown that I will make hard decisions, including those which will have my base angry at me" was awesome.  Meanwhile, back in Evil Obama world . . .]

    I don't think the wall street (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    crowd is too mad, ABG. Nor the latte liberals, the 'whole foods class' or the 'creative class.'

    It's just the regular folks.


    Jeff (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    half of whom are republicans, and they'd be mad anyway.  Disagree with your statement of course.

    I'm shocked that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    we disagree, Angry! Shocked! ;-)

    Because it ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    ... is so hard on him when his base is angry at him, and it's something that he's never tried before.

    You know, every time I hear Obama (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    proudly declare that he's made decisions that ticked off his base, I wonder if he realizes that what he's really saying is that his base is wrong.  

    So, I guess he thinks the base - the people who voted for him - has been wrong a lot, and those people on the other side - who didn't vote for him then and aren't likely to ever vote for him - are right.  

    What's the point of electing someone who isn't just not representing your interests but is proudly rejecting them?

    Because we're just too stupid to understand these complicated issues?  Now, there's a winning campaing strategy.


    You know what (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    I think when I hear that? The people who actually spent their time advocating for him and giving him money are the biggest suckers of all time because he seems to have nothing but disdain for him. Everyone who voted for him got a smack in the face with that comment.

    It isn't just (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    his base. 80% of the country thinks he horrible on economics.

    He thinks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:35:42 PM EST
    your'e a sucker when he says that but maybe he's right. You've said you'll vote for him no matter what he does.

    And it's over (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    I'm going out for the rest of the day now because to dwell on that presser will require either a huge Prozac or a handgun to my temple. Frick, my husband watched the second half of it with me and he said to me, "I can't get out of the Army for ten years now everything is so phucked". He looked so tired when he said it. WE ARE DOOMED

    My sympathies (none / 0) (#110)
    by Amiss on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    to your husband and your family.

    A lot of people have it much worse (none / 0) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    though at this time. If I feel this crappy, how are other people managing this?

    Obama's answer to our problems (none / 0) (#44)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    Blame someone else or Divide and separate ! Here in Chicago we are experiencing mob attacks on businesses and individuals. IMO he feeds the growing anger and resentments with his rhetoric.
    The press conference was pathetic. He really needs to talk less...  

    The violence in Chi Town (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    is Obama's fault?  Funny thing: crime has plunged dramatically the last 2 years nationwide.

    Can I argue that that is because people love Obama and his policies?

    Again, the reports and opinions of the presser coming out are in direct opposition to what you are saying.  

    And blaming someone else is the right thing to do if the someone else deserves the blame.

    The GOP deserves the blame.  We should spend more time on that fact.


    Interesting fact on crime (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    Violent and nonviolent crime have been dropping since the 90s. Why? demographics. Aging populations are less likely to do such things.

    I actually think it is the internet (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    People interact in real life less and spend more time indoors on the computer. Less opportunity for  crime.  Also, we are increasingly cashless and robbery isn't as lucrative.

    I think history will show that that is a huge part of it.


    Sociologists and demographers (none / 0) (#68)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    look a the aging issue. the trend started back when the last baby boomers began to turn about 25. Pre web, actually, and pre-cashless economy.

    Most violent crimes aren't about robbery. They are domestic disputes, assaults, etc.


    ABG ...... (none / 0) (#71)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    I can assume you watch NBC and MSNBC...and as far as the crime factor is concerned it's on the rise here in Chicago! Despite what you may hear in the MSM Obama's support is disappearing even here in Chicago.

    Crime perceptinons v. Reality (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    Is a pet topic of mine.  

    As a general rule, people always think crime in their area is increasing no matter what.  That is aggravated by the fact that the internet and media allow us to know about more crimes occuring.

    The reality:

    Crime is down in Chicago and has been falling for 29 straight months.

    The media and our fears throw our perceptions off.  Same thing happened here in Atlanta.  There was a string of high profile crimes downtown, people protested and all manner of hell was raised.

    Meanwhile the numbers showed the crime was falling like a rock.


    Unless there is evidence that shows (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    that the reporting requirements have not changed - how police departments record and report crimes - I would not be so assured that crime is actually falling as much as is thought, if at all.

    When populations get up in arms over crime, when federal funding is at stake based on crime statistics, it is not uncommon for the reporting methods to change - even if only subtly - in order to be able to say, "see?  it's not as bad as you think."


    Uniform Crime Report, (none / 0) (#82)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    from the FBI, is an excellent indicator. Especially when balanced by the National Crime Victimization Survey.

    3 times more crimes happen than are reported, but both have decreased in the aggregate. Notice I'm not addressing Chicago.

    However, look at some chicago-centric crime victimization surveys. No, I don't know what they are, not a Chicago resident. I've been thru Midway and O'Hare, and that's about it.


    Anne (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:25:18 PM EST
    That's the same position used on employment numbers.  If we are going to try to figure out whether any activity is increasing or decreasing, from employment to crime, we have to settle on something as a judge.  

    Official crime stats aren't always perfect, but we have been fairly consistent in tracking them for 20 years and they are the only reference we have.

    You can always argue based on anecdotal evidence, but if we want to compare apples to apples, we go to those crime stats.

    We can have faith in them because there is no way to fail to report murders and people dead. I don't think people are hiding bodies.  Same with gun injuries.  You go to the hospital and you have to report the bullet in your arm.


    Fun Game (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    Look at Google News right now and you will find a window into an alternative universe where the responses Obama just gave were tough and bold and Obama made strong stances on tax increases on the wealthy, gay rights, etc.


    Same thing happened when Obama made his announcement on plans for Afghanistan. Polls out on that one:

    "In the Gallup survey, 72 percent of Americans say they back Obama's overall plan to withdraw 33,000 troops in the next year or so and then hand over control of Afghanistan to the Afghan people by the end of 2014. Twenty-three percent oppose it."

    Now I disagree with Obama on his plans, but I have to concede that it obviously sounds good to others.  

    Same with the answers he gave today.  Nothing but negatives around here, but I think it is what most mainstream liberals and even some conservatives wanted to hear from him.

    SUre (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    I like that too on a certain level but it's not really what is needed. It's kind of like Obama's top line numbers aren't that bad but as with everything with Obama the underlying numbers seem to be the ones that tell the real story of what's going on. If we still have troops in Afghanistan in '12 after the majority of Americans wanting them all out, then pulling some troops out is just going to be seen as a half measure and Obama might not even be in office in '14. So it's kind of silly to be talking about what's going to happen in '14 right now.

    Words. Talk. Sounds. Optics. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    This isn't the symphony.  Or a Broadway play.  It's not a book on CD.  It's not a fireworks show.  It's not a movie.  Those are things where assessing how it sounds or looks is the experience.

    Obama is the movie trailer, a preview of coming attractions that shows you all the best bits so you will buy the ticket; he's always been good at that.  But is my judgment of how he sounds a real measure of his performance?  No - and it shouldn't be.  We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that all that matters is the preview.

    I understand that some people not only like what they hear, they eventually approve of the performance, but as many times as I have heard the initial rave reviews start to take on qualifiers and rationales and caveats and excuses so that the eventual end result matches the now-lowered expectations, you will just have to pardon me while I withhold judgment until there's some action behind the words and he stops talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    I will not be holding my breath.  


    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about both sides of their mouth as much as Obama has. His word salads leave me frankly confused. He can't be clear on any issue. He must have missed class the KISS principle was being taught in law school.

    Remember Nixon? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    Talking out of both sides of his mouth and lying out of both sides at the same time.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    but I really didn't want to let loose. He does remind me of Nixon in many ways.

    Snap! (none / 0) (#137)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    Ouch. (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    I think part of it is the level of analysis (none / 0) (#55)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:15:32 PM EST
    that polls can't reach, ABG. I am glad to see the surge ended in Afghanistan.

    But I think pulling out 10,000 troops by Christmas ought to be pulling out 33k by Christmas.

    Two-three years ago I was training up to go as one of the civilians with the Army to reduce casualties. First, a severe injury, then the addition of the pathetic War on Drugs end-the-poppy campaigns, and I decided that once again, the administration missed it. then the debate on the surge... timeliness.

    "For want of a nail, a shoe was lost..."


    Alternate Reality (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    "The primary goal of President Obama's presser, which just wrapped up, was obvious: He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich. Obama mounted a surprisingly aggressive moral case for ending high end tax cuts, casting it as a test of our society's priorities, and argued -- crucially -- that anyone who fails to support ending them is fundamentally unserious about the deficit."

    - Greg Seargent, WaPo

    "The front pages of both the New York Times and Washington Post focused on exactly that issue. "Obama: Republican Leaders Must Bend on Taxes" reads the New York Times headline. "Obama urges GOP to agree to tax increases; President says Republicans hold indefensible position in debt talks" says the Washington Post. "OBAMA TO GOP: END TAX BREAKS FOR MILLIONAIRES, OIL COMPANIES" blares The Huffington Post. And "Obama Demands House GOP Act On Jobs, Taxes" says TPM.  As Chris Ciliza pointed out, President Obama was unusually confrontational in his tone, calling out Republicans for talking about taking a vacation before getting their job done on the debt ceiling. President Obama flatly stated that there is absolutely no way to a get a balanced agreement without movement from Republicans on revenues."

    - Kos

    The cheerleaders (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    continue to cheer, tauting the headlines rather than what is really happening..  

    KOS, for one, stands to gain huge sums of money from the Obama campaign. Only a naive person or a koolaid drinker would use him as a source for anything Obama-related.

    Oh wait.....


    I like how you keep on trying, despite the fact (3.67 / 3) (#107)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    that many folks here respond to your posts with, shall we say, less than friendly responses.

    See, Greg Seargent isn't a good cite because he didn't start his article off with, "Obama is an unqualified, inept, and insane spineless coward." Not only that, he didn't add the word "hysteria" every time he wrote deficit.

    And Kos? Really? Kos threw Sen. Clinton under the bus during the primaries. His opinions are rarely going to be welcome here - until it's BTD who quotes him.

    I admire your determination. I hope you keep trying to move that mountain, one grain of sand at a time.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    I feel like their are untold legions of TL readers who don't comment as much as the regulars that have some sympathy for my positions.  I speak on behalf of those silent masses.  [Or at least that's what I am telling myself as I take on the Internets.]

    Anyway, the battle helps me think through the issues. My opinions on Afghanistan have changed 180 degrees through battles like these.

    Who knows. I could be Anne in six months.  Doubt it, but I don't discount the possibility.


    You won't be in Anne in 6 months (3.67 / 3) (#132)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    She uses facts to support her positions.

    But thank you for alerting us that you are the new Spiro Agnew, speaking for the silent majority.


    shoephone (none / 0) (#161)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    I use facts to support mine as well.

    But see, you say positive things about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    By definition, those things cannot be facts. You'll never be popular that way.

    If you want your posts to get more fives, point out negative things about Obama. For example, at the press conference this morning he said his oldest daughter is 13. Fact is, she won't have her 13th birthday for another few days. What kind of father would do a thing like that? Truly, he is history's greatest monster.

    See? Then relate that to the lack of jobs, and/or the economy, then you're set.


    Farmboy (none / 0) (#199)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    Good stuff. Lol.

    Who is this Kos? (none / 0) (#87)
    by observed on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    Let's use some elementary statistics here. How many fights has Obama had with Republicans, and how many times did the Republicans win?

    I forgot (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    He lost healthcare reform here in the alternative universe.

    Health INSURANCE reform, (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    not health care reform.

    As he has been reminded endlessly (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    And every time he discusses it, he still misstates it.  In his alternate universe they are the same thing.

    No (none / 0) (#164)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    I just reject the way in which you are characterizing it.

    I understand completely what you are trying to do, i have studied and understand the meaning of the words as you use them, I have had multiple discussions with you and others on the distinction you are trying to make and in the scheme of what we are talking about everything from a public option to single payer could be deemed "insurance" so your points is ridiculous and rejected with authority.

    You keep calling it that and I'll keep calling BS. We can do that as much as you want but it seems boring to me.


    I guess you missed the banners (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    Obama had behind him as he championed Health INSURANCE Reform.

    you almost never call BS on it or (none / 0) (#169)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    try to defend your mischaracterization.  When the distinction is made to you, you usually just stop responding.  I'm actually quite surprised to see you respond here, so good for you (really.  in a weird sort of way).

    You're still mischaracterizing because the point people are making is health insurance is not health care.  One is method of payment and the other is treatment. And "coverage" isn't even either of those, but only a definition of parameters.


    I'll defend nothing of the sort now (none / 0) (#171)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    I have defended it before, people disagreed with me, told me that I was wrong and mischaracterizing it and I just kept it moving.

    There are times when I fee like writing a long comment explaining my point with the full expectation that none of it will be listened to because it doesn't jive with others notions, but not on the "insurance" v. "healthcare" point which is just too ridiculously asinine even for me.

    You keep calling it what you want, I'll call it what I want and it'll be all good.

    Note, i think your characterization is bullsh*t too, but who cares.  It's not relevant to anything.


    And SJ (none / 0) (#173)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    If there is one accusation that is demonstrably, irrefutably bullsh*t, it is the following:

    ABG does not respond to criticisms or try to explain his position.

    That's just hilarious.  During lunch time or other down time, I am engaged in no less than 4-6 discussions simultaneously and actively trying to answer their criticisms.

    You should try another argument if you are trying to score points.


    Oh there are SOME bones (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    you won't let go.  That's manifestly clear.

    Ooops, I meant fights on taxes for the (none / 0) (#111)
    by observed on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    rich. You're predicting that he will cream the Republicans, next time. I guess that will be in some alternate universe.
    Obama and Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich won the battle on HCR---I'll give you that.

    He lost the battle on taxing the rich (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    Not the war. And it was a strategic retreat.

    Laughable (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:13:27 PM EST
    That "strategic retreat" is costing us $60+ billion a year in unrealized revenues.

    You ought to make a strategic (none / 0) (#135)
    by observed on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    retreat from your prediction that Obama will raise taxes on the rich----this time.

    I still think (none / 0) (#159)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    that could happen.  It will just be a bit more indirect.

    Indirect? (none / 0) (#166)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    Explanation needed.

    Easy. Regressive taxes (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:13:11 PM EST
    on McDonalds. the rich folks who eat there will be taxed more.

    That's not ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    ... an "alternate" universe.

    Alternate reality: (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    Can't think of one person here who subscribes to the nonsense that passes for commentary at the Orange Place. Even if it comes straight from Mr. Orange himself.

    ...especially if... (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:04:31 PM EST
    ...it comes from Mr. Orange.

    Even if I was still a card-carrying Democrat, based on all of the money that KOS gained from Obama during the last election, I'd still consider his site about as factual as the National Enquirer...well, actually less so since the NE has broken some news lately.


    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    he made a speech two months ago that I very much liked on the same topic, in fact I liked it better.  We'll see what happens.

    Speeches are meaningless w/out actions (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    to match. And this is the core problem with this presidency.

    So (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    what if Obama says that? We all know he won't hold firm and will say that it's the best deal that could be gotten or the GOP took some hostages and I just had to do it.

    Let me set some expectations (none / 0) (#108)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    Any deal will involve big spending cuts.

    If you think that is failure, then just go ahead and call whatever happens a failure now.


    Yes (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    it will involve the spending cuts the GOP wants that I will agree on and there will be no new revenue streams so the GOP will be winner takes all in this "negotiation".

    Will you call it a failure if it does (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    not also include tax increases? (or tax loophole closures, whatever the terminology of the day is).

    Boehner said Sunday a deal absolutely will not include any type of tax increase. Not even on the table. Obama said today (according to those headlines)  it "must". To me, if Obama does not prevail, that is a failure.


    My answer is: (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    If the GOP agrees to the tax increases, it will be a big success for Obama - getting that first crack in the wall is a big thing.

    It would have been an even bigger success if he had done NOTHING in December, instead of The Deal, but that ship sailed.


    I would. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    At least if you're going to buy into the whole "deficit" hysteria, you have to admit revenue increases have to be part of the "deal". If you don't and only do spending cuts then Obama is the big loser in that.

    However, I do not see the GOP allowing any to go through congress and I think that Obama will cave in the end and we'll hear it's the best he could do and poor Obama.

    The GOP has him between a rock and a hard place. If he does the planned Medicare cuts he's giving the GOP an invitation to ream him on that during the '12 elections.


    Ruffian (none / 0) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    Good question. I have a bit of a matrix:

    Obama Wins (and does not fail) if we have one of the following:

    • Spending cuts + material tax increases

    • Spending cuts + Massive Defense cuts + minor tax increases

    • Spending cuts + some Defense Cuts + some tax increases

    • Spending cuts + Some Defense Cuts + some tax increases disguised as accounting tricks

    • Spending cuts + Some Defense Cuts + 2012 expiration of taxes on rich

    Obama losses:

    • Spending cuts only

    • Spending cuts + tax increases that are less than 15% of cuts

    Note that under every scenario spending cuts are there. Note also that I am kind of interested in the Coburn/Lieberman Medicaid compromise. I think that is going to play a big part in the resolution, but I can't quite get my mind around all of the complexities. It actually looks halfway reasonable.  

    Finally the cuts:tax increase ratio is also key.

    I'd like 1:1 ($1 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases).  That's not going to happen, but 4:1 would be an acceptable compromise in this environment and be a win in my book.


    No. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    There comes a point when you face your adversary and you state, "you can kill me, but not destroy me."

    This is the time. No spending cuts. No bipartisain commission. Let's play Mutually Assured Destruction while checking on whether the constitution means anything re US debts.


    You should (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    run for office. I'd donate to your campaign because you understand a lot of basics Obama doesn't seem to like having plan A, B, C and D and standing firm even if they try to kill you.

    You mean the Medicare compromise? (none / 0) (#146)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    "Leading Congressional Democrats immediately recoiled Tuesday from a new proposal to cut $600 billion in Medicare spending over the next decade -- in part by raising the eligibility age. Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) unveiled the proposal as part of a bipartisan effort to produce the kind of savings necessary to achieve the $2 trillion in debt reduction both parties say is needed to convince reticent lawmakers to vote to raise the debt ceiling. It would raise Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67 and assess higher premiums on wealthier seniors...Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) termed it 'a bad idea.' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it 'unacceptable.'"


    Hell naw.

    And seriously if you want Obama to win in 2012 you should hope he stays away from that (and I think he will).


    Again (none / 0) (#147)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    Don't know much about it so you may be right.

    Wow, yeah that is garbage (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    Agreed. I, too, hope (none / 0) (#190)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    that President Obama stays away from that bipartisan (I/R) idea of Coburn and Lieberman.  But, it is more likely that Obama is on the same page as Coburn and Lieberman than he is on  Senator Reid and Leader Pelosi's.   And, I am starting to gather that the Lieberman/Coburn idea has been vetted by the White House and is already on the Obama talking points being distributed for blogger and others consumption.  Coburn  and Lieberman are probably the president's best senatorial buddies, as well.  

    Not having looked at the (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    Coburn/Lieberman thing either (are they really pretending those two had to compromise with eachother? Ha!) I can tell you I am against it just on principle. I would not call any cut in health care related areas a success. If we are going down the path of the ACA let's at least not mess with it now. If such cuts came with a tax increase, maybe I would relent a little and call it a wash rather than a failure. I don't know.

    In general have pre-caved myself on the spending cuts even though I am against most of the non-defense ones...but since they are going to happen I think your breakdown is acceptable. I would even call any level of tax increase a success.


    ruffian, I posted a link to the Lieberman/ (none / 0) (#191)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    Coburn proposal up above, with a breakdown of what's in it.

    Given the kinds of noises also being made by the president - also provided in my earlier comment - it isn't hard to imagine that Lieberman/Coburn sets one end of the pole to an extreme that will allow the "compromise" middle to also reflect benefit cuts.

    The thought I had on my drive home tonight was that, should the age for Medicare eligibility be raised, that would, like Social Security, also represent a cut in benefits, but worse, it would require older people to expend several more years of premiums at a time when they are generally at their highest - that's some cost-sharing, huh?


    What's your matrix ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    ... for a "markedly better economy" or "sharp reversal" that you've been predicting for anywhere between the end of the year and next summer?

    Yman (none / 0) (#178)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    I never had one of those. I stated that unemployment would be in the 7 or 8 range at the time of the election and if it was in the 7 range it would be an easy win.

    I say enough things that you probably hate.  No need for you to make up stuff.

    But because you put it out there, the economy will be markedly better in 2012 than it was in the Fall of 2010 when I made that statement.

    See there. Now you can use that one in the future.


    That's you setting expectations? (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    I would have that expectation even if I had never heard of you.

    sj (none / 0) (#145)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:29:37 PM EST
    Then you want express shock and dismay and outrage when it happens.  You can get it all out now.  Cool.

    dismay maybe. absolutely no shock (none / 0) (#157)
    by sj on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:55:09 PM EST
    "Call me naive. . .Ok, you're naive" (none / 0) (#168)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    As unhappy as I've been with Obama of late, I think this is an unfair gibe on your part. Obama was addressing Republicans, not Democrats, with that remark, calling them out sarcastically for not doing their jobs. Sort of like saying, call me crazy, but when I hire a painter to paint the house, I expect him to paint the house. I'm actually happy to hear Obama taking some long deserved digs at Republicans.

    Taxing the rich won't help (none / 0) (#203)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    Taxing the populist bogeymen won't close the deficit...which will be much WORSE when interest rates go back up to normal.