home

Read Of The Day

Ta-Nehisi Coates:

Obama has been much praised for the magnanimity he shows his opposition. But such empathy, unburdened by actual expectations, comes easy. More challenging is the work of coping with those who have the disagreeable habit of taking the president, and his talk of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” seriously. In that business, Obama would do well to understand that while democracy depends on intelligent compromise, it also depends on the ill-tempered gripers and groaners out in the street.

Coates references Eric Foner's great book The Fiery Trial, which I wrote about here:

I'm reading Eric Foner's latest book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American slavery. In the preface of the book, Foner discusses Lincoln's historical relationship to abolitionist activists:

Lincoln, many recent scholars have argued, acted within the narrow limits of the possible, as established by Northern public opinion. Public opinion however, is never static; the interactions of enlightened political leaders, engaged social movements, and day to day experiences [. . .[ can change the nature of public debate and in so doing the boundaries of what is practical. As the Chicago Tribune noted at the end of the Civil War, in crisis situations beliefs once pronounced "impractical radicalism" suddenly become "practical statesmanship."

(Emphasis supplied.) Foner's point is that Lincoln's actions were not solely shaped by his own perceptions of what was possible, but very much influenced by the spaces created by the public discourse.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Winning >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I find Obama's lectures on (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    the necessity of compromise jejune.
    It's no different that going around say "Guys, we need to have a goal. Let's get together and have a goal".

    He needs to be making a case that a certain endpoint should be reached. Instead, he gives the (probably false) impression that almost anything will do.

    Another point is that his servile desire to please Republicans who don't want to be seen as agreeing with him makes finding a deal like chasing his own tail.

    his tail or theirs? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    He's trying to chase theirs, and (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    ends up chasing his own.


    Parent
    Obama has not adapted. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    Obama has not adapted to a "post Bush" world where all the wobbles, not so sures, uncertain voters fell his way.  He doesn't really know how to handle that.

    Yet he is positive that his "base" unions, gay, ultra liberals and progressives, and lifelong democrats are going to vote for him.

    So why should he pay much attention to that base except to to pass them a few minor compliments occasionally and ask them for money.

    He is trying to relate to the people in the middle who really are "just not into him" and his policies with Bush out of sight.

    It isn't working.

    The people in the middle (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    voted him in because they wanted the country taken left, it was too rightwing for the majority's taste.  He didn't do that, and now they are upset too almost as much as the base because we started out in an economic rich profiteering crisis and we have stayed there.  It isn't that the middle isn't that into him, he ignored their needs as much as he ignored his base.

    Parent
    I don't think so. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sweetthings on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    The people in the middle then turned around and voted in one of the most radical Republican houses we've ever seen, along with tons of Republican governors and state houses. That's not something you'd expect to see from a population that thinks the country should move left - especially when you consider that Obama is very moderate himself.

    If anything, it indicates the people in the middle want us to move farther to the right.

    Parent

    Or it means they blame the party in power (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    for the state of the economy.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    And after watching what the Dems initially did with their power in the midst of the crisis they have good reason to believe that.

    Parent
    Let's hope not. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sweetthings on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    Otherwise, the winning strategy for the minority party will always be to torpedo the economy.

    We won't last long as a nation that way.

    Parent

    Or candidates (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    who are willing to commit to the people, explain the way forward for all of us, and offer yet another "New Deal" will win our loyalty and love for generations.

    Parent
    correct (none / 0) (#85)
    by klassicheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:36:23 AM EST
    It was a way to  take out their anger at Obama and the Democrats who propped him up.   But he never gets the message....which makes one wonder....whose side is he really on?  Obama is a frontman, paid to read his lines.  When there is no script, he is helpless....or rather, his true, unimaginative, uninspired, incompetent true self shines through, in all its shortcomings.  He had no business being President and the Democrats are to blame.  They had the power...and they squandered it.  It's like we had a reality show The Presidency and Obama won on image alone.  He's the image and we don't know who the puppeteers are.

    Parent
    The people in the middle (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    wanted change, they didn't get it so they did what the middle always does and they vote out incumbents in that case.  They aren't fiercely loyal to either party and in a two party system there isn't any other remedy for them other than simply voting for the other guy and they do it.  The problem with loyalist like us is that we can't comprehend that simplicity and we insist on overthinking it.  The Democrats didn't make anything better, used their power in the early stages to not challenge the rich enrichment, and a bunch of crazies started talking about turning off D.C.s money spigots.  It isn't rocket science why they voted for the crazies in that go around.  They want things fixed, in crisis they will vote for anyone who is going to do things "differently" if that is the only option they have.

    Parent
    That first sentence should have been (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    Obama has not adapted to a "post Bush" world where all the wobbles, not so sures, uncertain voters may not fall his way.  He doesn't really know how to handle that.

    Parent
    But the problem is that, if people (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    with the power to make policy aren't listening to the negative public discourse, what then?  I see polls that say that the people do not want cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid - but the only polls that ever get any oxygen are the ones where people say they want their representatives to compromise - period - with no mention of what that "compromise" might mean.  That people-want-compromise poll result is used, over and over again, to push an agenda that the people have said they do not support.

    I think what's missing most of all is real ideological tension, the kind that defines issues instead of blurring them.  Bickering is not the same thing; these people are arguing over how they're going to cook the hamburger, not whether hamburger is what people want to eat.

    Maybe the worst thing Obama has engineered is the loss of the Democratic Party's identity as a voice for the people who don't have money, don't have power, and need government to work for them.  Yes, I'm aware that there was movement to the "center" before Obama took the national stage, but Obama's "center" has turned out to be hollow, and lacking any meaningful definition that isn't preceded by dollar signs.  

    They just aren't listening; they have us on "mute," believing we have nowhere else to go.

    What gets their attention?  Money and votes; I don't have a lot of the former, but I do have a vote, and I WILL NOT vote for people who DO NOT have my interests at heart.


    Obama's "center" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    has turned out to be rather far to the right

    Yes, I'm aware that there was movement to the "center" before Obama took the national stage, but Obama's "center" has turned out to be hollow, and lacking any meaningful definition that isn't preceded by dollar signs.


    Parent
    I feel like it's hollow, in the sense (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    that he's so hollow; I don't think he's necessarily driven by his ideology - I think if he had run as a Republican, there's a better than good chance he'd be sucking up to Democrats and moving the GOP to the left.  

    I know you don't like the psychology, but I truly believe he is driven by the need to prove, to those who are set up as his ideological opponents, that he can be better at what they do than they are.  And equally convinced that, were he on the other side of the political divide, he'd be moving things to the left in an effort to "out-Democrat" the Dems.

    I really think we'd all be better off if he changed his party affiliation.

    Parent

    The center that Obama structures his (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:40:10 AM EST
    legislation to accommodate.

    The insane belief common among many of the beltway pundits and politicians that the American people actually want a "grand bargain" or a "super Congress" to cut our entitlement programs has absolutely no basis in reality. It is purely a fantasy created by people with lots of money, who don't think they will ever have trouble affording the basic necessities after they retire. link

    They also don't really give a d@mn that the rest of the population will have serious problems affording the basic necessities after they retire. According to them, we must sacrifice everything so that don't have to sacrifice a dime but rather be given additional tax cuts under the guise of tax reform.  

    Parent

    Moderate conservative (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    A one-time Reagan policy adviser and then GHW Bush Treasury Dept. official, Bruce Bartlett, said on one of the Fox networks last night that Obama is actually a "moderate conservative."  As a Republican, he was amused by that, but enough of a human being to have some sympathy for all the Dem. voters who thought they were getting a liberal.

    Parent
    So, we should always heed what (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    Reagan's economic people tell us? I know...couldn't resist...because it isn't like Bartlett wouldn't curry favor at Fox (?)

    But, I must admit: The tactic which Bartlett & others appear to be using is the ol' head-fake to undermine the opposition.

    Parent

    Seems Krugman agrees (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:45:14 PM EST
    and he is not known for currying favor with Fox.
    July 26, 2011:

    The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president -- actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform -- his only major change to government -- was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else -- including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment -- is according to the conservative playbook. link


    Parent
    Krugman is not politically astute at all (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    and the fact that he said it is probably the reason the comment was repeated on Fox.

    Clearly this is a talking point designed to undermine internal Democratic support for the president.

    Parent

    Seems the president is doing just (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    fine undermining his own support. I don't think a lot of the Dem base is overly invested in Fox talking points . . . .

    Parent
    Personnally, I will take Krugman's (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    view over yours anytime.

    Obama's moderate conservative policies are undermining the Democratic Party. His "trickle down policies" are so similar to Reagan's that even Jesse Jackson, Jr. has made the comparison prior to Obama enacting the Obama tax cuts which BTW are even more generous to the wealthy than the Bush tax cuts.

    A co-chairman of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign compared the president's economic agenda to that of Republican President Ronald Reagan on Friday.
    ...
    "If we cut taxes for the wealthy, while maintaining massive military spending in support of two wars, then the new Republican Congress will be empowered to cut social programs in order to reduce the deficit," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a longtime friend and sometimes critic of the president, said in a statement. "So it will be a choice between cutting programs for the poor, children, the unemployed, the uninsured and veterans or allowing deficits to pile up. That was President Reagan's strategy: A 'starve the beast' plan of lowered taxes and increased military spending that would force Congress to make deep cuts in program for the most vulnerable."
    ...
    "A tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is the wrong policy at the wrong time. It will not stimulate the economy. It will only add to the debt without creating jobs," he said. "If we recklessly cut taxes for the wealthiest 2%, then Obamanomics will look an awful lot like Reaganomics." link

    Let's repeat this one more time to highlight the path that Obama chose.

    "So it will be a choice between cutting programs for the poor, children, the unemployed, the uninsured and veterans or allowing deficits to pile up. That was President Reagan's strategy: A 'starve the beast' plan of lowered taxes and increased military spending that would force Congress to make deep cuts in program for the most vulnerable."

     

    Parent

    Let me know when you see specific plans (3.00 / 3) (#58)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    advocated by the president and signed into law that:

    [cut] programs for the poor, children, the unemployed, the uninsured and veterans [in order to avoid] allowing deficits to pile up

    I seem to remember the president advocating the exact opposite, e.g. Medicaid expansion under ACA, extension of unemployment benefits in exchange for continuation of Bush tax cuts.

    Parent

    July 6, 2011 (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending. link

    Has Obama refuted that he offered cuts to these programs? Has he ever stated that he will veto any cuts to these programs? Well no. He has confirmed that he has offered to cut "entitlement" programs.

    Barack Obama, 7/22/2011, 6:06pm ET:

    "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." link

    See the word that Obama used. He used the word cuts. What cuts were offered:

    Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama's previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

    Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

    Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

    Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

    Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny. link

    Obama is still advocating his $4 trillion "Grand Bargain" which includes the cuts mentioned above. If he is unsuccessful in including them in the debt ceiling legislation, the proposed "Super Senate" or some of the caps that are included in both Boehner's and Reid's legislation will provide the perfect opportunity for Congress to pass these changes while relieving themselves of the responsibility that would be there using the standard process.

    The president has taken every opportunity since 2007 to sell cuts to the "entitlement" programs. He has set up numerous processes to move this legislation along. From all indications, he is going to keep on until he reaches his goal.

    If you consider your analysis "astute," god save ordinary people from the politically astute.

    Parent

    and yet, (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    none of that is law.  Nor do you know what the "cuts" entail specifically, how they would be structured and who would be impacted.

    Here's a bet, these so-called "cuts" if they happen, won't amount to much more than a reshuffling of numbers and have little to no impact on every day americans.

    Parent

    Seems like your memory is very (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    selective. It's honest to say that Obama has talked out of both sides of his mouth, but not to claim that he hasn't put cutting "entitlements" on the table.

    Parent
    Of course he has (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    However, I say again, whether the truly vulnerable will be impacted is a totally different matter and has yet to take place.  "Cuts" can take many forms.  For example, would it be a cut if, some segment of the Medicare-eligible population obtains their health coverage via the ACA's exchange and the corresponding funding is moved out of Medicare?  If the person obtains the same or better coverage are they impacted negatively?  Technically, the Medicare program is cut, but in reality, there is no negative impact since in the end, the target group still has coverage.

    I say before we panic, let's see the details first.  "Sources say" does not a bill make.


    Parent

    Moving some segment of the population (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    out of Medicare into Obama's health insurance exchanges will have a negative impact on both the Medicare pool and the exchange pool. If they remain in employer covered plans rather than purchasing insurance through the exchange it will increase the age of the participants in the employer pool and increase premiums. About every knowledgeable source has written about the negative financial impact such a move would have on all age groups.

    What you are recommending is partial privatization of Medicare. A form of the Ryan Plan for a portion of seniors. Medicare currently has actuarial values of 80/20. The actuarial values in the exchange are 70/30 and 60/40. It is not better coverage and it is more costly that Medicare.  While it is a goal of the Republicans and evidently Obama,  to force seniors into the private insurance industry it will only benefit you if you are part of that industry. It will not save money and will shift large costs to seniors.  

    Parent

    Please note: I'm not recommending anything (none / 0) (#81)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    I am providing an alternative scenario.

    The "increase premiums" part of your first paragraph is based on assumptions since no one knows what plans will actually charge once ACA goes fully into effect.

    The ACA will require plans to offer more than just 70/30 and 60/40 splits:

    The ACA specifies that beginning in 2014 insurance newly sold to individuals and small businesses in an Exchange or otherwise must be at one of four actuarial value levels: 60% (a bronze plan), 70% (a sliver plan), 80% (a gold plan), and 90% (a platinum plan).

    Poorer people pay even less.

    Link

    Although you probably won't agree, benefits of exchanges extend beyond the insurance industry.

    Parent

    The subsidized plans for everyone with (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    incomes of 201% of poverty ($23,126) get silver plans (73/27 201%, 301% 70/30).

    When you get to plans for people at 401% of poverty or over (no subsidy), the basic premium purchases a policy with a 60/40 split.  

    Parent

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    Medicare spending is projected to increase from $519 billion in 2010 to $929 billion in 2020, taking into account changes to Medicare incorporated in the Affordable Care Act of 2010(CBO, August 2010). The law is projected to reduce annual growth in Medicare spending over the next decade and beyond, by reducing the growth in Medicare payments to health care providers and Medicare Advantage plans, establishing several new policies and programs designed to reduce costs and improve quality of patient care, and establishing a new Independent Payment Advisory Board to recommend Medicare spending reductions if projected spending exceeds target growth rates. The law also increases the Medicare Part A payroll tax rate for higher-income people, and increases Part B and Part D premiums for higher income beneficiaries.

    Link

    i.e. "cuts"

    Parent

    Yep, we all see a bit differently (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    We should wonder though how many alarms have to be sounded by those who keep "seeing" entitlement cuts, and cannot point to any that have occurred? As you say, we always see in budgets, for as far back as memory serves, the reshuffling & accounting creativity. At some point, there does have to be substance of what is...not what we fear maybe, possibly could happen.

    In a fact-based situation of actual legislation, someone should be able to align concerns with what has actually been passed in the way of recognized entitlement cuts.

    Parent

    Christine, I think we all understand (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    that there is no legislation containing cuts or a mechanism for cutting that has been signed into law; you don't have to keep repeating that "nothing has been passed" - we all get that.

    What you seem to be avoiding by invoking the straw man of "no legislation" is the fact that cuts have been "on the table," have been written into various plans, have been part of almost every speech or press conference the president has given.  

    What none of us is buying, Christine, is that offering these programs up, painting a big blue bull's-eye on them, is part of a strategy to protect them from cuts.  If that is the case, then Obama has been plotting this strategy since as far back as 2007: he knew this was his plan when he spoke about cuts right after he was inaugurated, he knew the Congress would reject an in-house deficit commission, leaving him free to  convene his own - which he also knew would not be able to come up with the necessary votes to send recommendations to the Congress.  Meanwhile, he hung onto the debt limit issue instead of leveraging it in December, 2010, with the idea that even as he was getting behind plans that contained provisions for a new commission, his ultimate plan was to emerge as the savior of the social safety net.

    Man, that is one Rube Goldberg-esque contraption that has to be built just to avoid seeing what has been in front of your face for months.  I might suggest you open your eyes, but I'm sure that would prompt you to inquire if I was some sort of Republican supporter.

    Whatever you want to believe about why Obama offered these things up for cutting, there can be no denying that the mere fact of putting them there has opened a door to doing just that.

    Parent

    Quick reply, Anne (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    1. Like vicndabox, I like to wait a bit for proof of the sky falling. Seriously. You clearly know the difference between talk & proposals & legislation.  'Would only add: "Positioning" is a significant factor as well...designed to create different perceptions in different situations...yet, cental to whatever actual legislation may eventually be enacted. With the Repubs taking the role of Crazies in this Congress, there really are limited responses...see earlier comments by BTD about the strength of "crazy." (AP is also running a piece on Google today about "chicken" as a negotiation tactic...read the "Crazies"...and where it breaks down in group dynamics.) In short: Positioning is key to long term relationships that involve continual negotiations...as in the President vis a vis the Congress.  (Note: While it may or may not be the faddish 11-dimensional, it is more than what you see.)

    2 I differ with your positioning of referring to my pointing out the distinction between what has been passed and what has been talked about as "strawman" tactic. Not at all. There is reality now...and there is possibility at some other time.

    Parent

    To the trailing Romberry: Hey...thanks again. (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    See my post at #77 (none / 0) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    Wow. (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:34:28 AM EST
    You really are out of touch.

    We don't know what he was pitching for Medicaid, but he's changing (don't think it even needs congressional approval) the formula for SS COLAs to one that results in significantly lower increases.

    And he wants Medicare eligibility moved up to 67.

    Those things we know for sure, and the White House has even bragged about them.

    And if it doesn't happen this go-round because the Republicans are tied up in knots, don't kid yourself, it'll be back next time.

    Parent

    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    Obama does not WANT to be seen as a liberal. He couldn't be happier if someone thinks he's a moderate conservative.

    Parent
    Sweetheart (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    if you lived on this planet, you'd know that one does not curry favor with Fox by casting Obama as a conservative.

    As for "Bartlett and others"-- suggest you start by reading the Wikipedia entry on him.

    Parent

    And in any case, I was mistaken (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:31:25 AM EST
    The guy was on Matthews on MSNBC.

    Got a new theory?

    Parent

    I think the bigger problem is (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Obama and his listening/aspiring to Reagan.

    Parent
    And, Romberry, what say you about (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    the classic tact that any politician learns early...especially that "economist" Bartlett?

    Parent
    Just watched that (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    What we need (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    is a true Populist Party, one which cares about, yes, the populace- those who are powerless, those who are hurting, those who are poor, those who are just scraping by.

    Parent
    I think we need an out and out (none / 0) (#84)
    by smott on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 08:36:42 PM EST
    Labor Party

    Parent
    I really enjoyed Coates article. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    But let's all remember we're not getting an Emancipation Proclamation out of this.

    We're raising the debt ceiling, and cutting at least 2 trillion dollars.

    A lot of these Lincoln arguments seem to be directed more at the ACA than anything else.

    additionally (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    the point of these comparisons is to illustrate that compromises lead to bigger, better projects.  The Emancipation Proclamation leads to the total end of slavery.  

    By that logic, where does a compromise that includes 2 trillion in cuts and no revenue lead us?

    It's impossible to deny that the debt ceiling has been a completely fiasco.

    Parent

    The reporters and interviews on NPR (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:44:13 PM EST
    are finally starting to ask about the economic impact of the spending cuts. A story yesterday talked about the effect of the possible default would have on states receiving their payments from the Feds for various programs. At the very end they tagged on something to the effect of 'of course, the states stand to lose plenty of money if these cuts go through also'. There was one other mention that I forgot the specifics of, but at least they are starting to talk about it at all.

    Parent
    Yes, somehow the draconian spending cuts (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    and their effects have gotten lost in all the crisis talk, haven't they? Here's just one example:

    What Does the U.S. Debt Ceiling Debate Mean for Science?

    And, of course, all that trickles down to lost jobs, more furloughs, less U.S. competitiveness, etc.

    Parent

    Here's another group which may suffer. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    Not only possibly delayed benefit checks, but also cutbacks:  Veterans

    Parent
    Obama seems unwilling (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    .

    Obama seems unwilling to compromise with reality.  The spending by the feds has doubled in the past ten years.  That rate of spending increase is obviously unsustainable to anyone with more sense than God gave a turnip.  

    Even if the rich are taxed at 100% and all corporate jets confiscated, that rate of spending increase cannot go on.

    that spending (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    has been congressionally approved.

    The republicans fail to deal with THAT reality.  The people voted in to do their job have passed that budget, and now the tea party is trying to change it retroactively.  You want to cut the budget, cut the budget.  In the BUDGET debate.

    Parent

    Budget? (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    .

    Neither the house nor the senate contrary to the budget act passed a budget last year.  Thank you Harry and Nancy.  This year the house passed a budget bill, but the senate has so far failed to act.

    In any case budget cuts do not necessarily mean spending cuts.  If an agency was budgeted for a 10% increase but was cut back to a 6% spending increase, that is a 4% budget cut.

    BTW, it does not matter who or how that spending rose at that rate, or that the evil Bush was a healthy spender as well.  The point remains that doubling federal spending every ten years is unsustainable.  Period.

    .

    Parent

    I'l entertain the possiblity that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    "doubling federal spending every ten years is unsustainable." when you demonstrate that it has happened.

    Parent
    Except that no one is ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    ... proposing to double government spending every 10 years, or even predicting it, so the fact that it's unsustainable is a moot/straw point.

    Washington Had a Spending Problem.

    The cost of new policies under Obama is drastically less than under Bush, and the rate of spending has also slowed drastically.

    Given actual fiscal year 2010 outlays and CBO projections through 2017 based on President Obama's budget proposal of February 2011, the compound annual rate of growth in federal total outlays in the eight years ended 2017 would be 3.65%, just 10 basis points above that of President Clinton's eight-year presidential tenure.


    Parent
    The WH budget "projections" for the (none / 0) (#61)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    out years have been debunked.  They were based on a fantasy economic GDP growth rate of somewhere north of 4% - with corresponding revenues.

    Parent
    These are CBO ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    ... projections.  I'm not vouching for their reliability (particularly over such a long period), but no one is predicting 100% growth of federal spending in 10 years.

    Parent
    Yes, thank you (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:32:39 PM EST
    We have a budget process, painful as it is. This whole discussion should be moved there, spending on individual items debated in sub-committees, etc. Where it will have to be done eventually anyway, whatever bargain is struck in the various meeting rooms this week.

     

    Parent

    That would be nice (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    Since they need to pass the FY 2011 budget.

    FY 2012 starts October 1.  So they will have to start that process as soon as they pass a budget for the year almost over.

    Parent

    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Happily agreeing to trillions of dollars of spending cuts and pushing for even more is "unwilling to compromise with reality" on federal spending?

    What planet do you live on?  Seriously.

    I don't think you know jack about the deficit and what it's made up of, not to mention how large a federal deficit is perfectly sustainable-- as it always has been.

    Parent

    Yep - the cuts Obama already agreed (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    to are more than in the Boehner plan they are voting on today. If the GOP was really serious about the deficit, they would have taken that deal.

    Parent
    he has agreed to (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    .

    He has agreed to budget cuts.  Who said anything about actual spending cuts?  Where are his numbers on paper?  

    .

    Parent

    I really do not know what form of media they use (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    to communicate in their negotiation meetings. Possibly no one is obliged to provide a piece of paper.

    Parent
    Can we see your numbers? (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    Does the 'spending has doubled' include interest payments, or simply budgeted program items? Does it include social security?

    Parent
    "Spending" includes everything (none / 0) (#49)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    .

    Spending includes all of the monies spent.

    In Fy2011 that is $3.818 trillion.

    In Fy2001 that is $1.863 trillion.

    So, spending has actually somewhat more than doubled.

    .

    Parent

    gee (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CST on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    I wonder what could have happened in that time to necessitate increased spending.

    You do realize we are in a severe recession right?

    I'd like to see those numbers for pre- and post- great depression to compare.

    People are out of work, they are literally starving, and they can't pay their bills.  And you are worried about what exactly?  Paper?  Too many food stamps?  Some obscure idea that our government is "too big".  Too big for what exactly?'

    People's lives are at stake.  A lot of them.  This isn't some made up economic disaster, it's very very real.

    Parent

    I agree (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:10:05 PM EST
    .

    People's lives are at stake.  A lot of them.  This isn't some made up economic disaster, it's very very real.

    I agree.  And Obama following the Herbert Hoover playbook of big increases in spending, increased taxes and increased regulation with similar counterproductive results is frankly scary.

    .

    Parent

    you are so full of it (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    since what you are proposing would cut the government to it's core.

    You know what worked out all right?  The new deal.  You know what worked even more than that?  World war 2 which was essentially a much much bigger government spending plan.

    WTF are you proposing exactly?  Starve the beast into submission?  Continue cutting taxes for those that have been hoarding money?  Just hope everyone dies off?

    cutting medicare/medicaid/social security will accomplish what exactly?  You have NO PLAN for unemployment.  Admit it.  All that money gets injected directly back into the economy, by necessity, and you want to starve the beast.

    Once everyone dies, the unemployment rate will go back down again right?  I am so tired of this nonsense.  All you say is "WAAAAAAAAAAH spending", but you have no concept of anything else that might actually get us out of this mess.  Who gives a $hit.

    Parent

    thank you (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    I see the increases are accounted for by defense and Health Care spending. I will happily agree that Obama has not done anything to cut those areas.

    By cutting health care I mean managing the cost of the care, not cutting services.

    Parent

    the unemployment rate (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 01:46:04 PM EST
    is obviously unsustainable to anyone with a half a brain.

    What is your plan for that exactly?

    My plan for govermnent spending is to cut it after the economy improves and states can hold their own again.

    All the rich people riding all the corporate jets they can handle isn't going to solve anything either.

    Parent

    unsustainable (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    .

    I agree that the current relatively low unemployment rate is unsustainable  with the administration's anti-growth (except for the crony capitalists) policies damaging the economy.

    .


    Parent

    that's whining (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    about nonsense.  That's not a plan.

    Parent
    not whining (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 02:58:27 PM EST

    just observation

    Parent
    That link to the Coates piece is off... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    Links to the same TL piece on income inequality.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    fixed.

    Parent
    Exactly, and the public discourse (none / 0) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    ... in the mass-media outlets is so constrained by DC Conventional Wisdom that the possible outcomes are always going to be narrowly defined. Anything outside those bounds is marginalized as Unserious or even Shrill.

    Between that and regulatory capture, I basically believe we're doomed. The best the Democrats seem to be able to offer is some retardation of the progress towards our doom.

    The only time that I can see that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    Obama used the spaces created by public discourse was when dealing with DADT.  In dealing with the economic crisis, he has apparently had his own agenda and it is an ugly one.

    Agreed, an excellent read (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    and one that the president and his political advisors should study.  The hippie-punching and  ridicule of those in the Democratic party who have the temerity to see things differently is something that, while inelegant, can be handled by the real adults in the party.

    However, the inapplicability, and indeed, exploitation of Lincoln's compromise on slavery in the service of either Obama' wanted goals or unwarranted caving, as the reality may be, is historically inexact and politically unseemly.  John Boehner is in panic trying to get his fellow asses in line,  but Barack Obama and his apologists needs to appreciate that Democrats have the donkey as a symbol but their herding is more akin to cats.

    Indeed it does (none / 0) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    it also depends on the ill-tempered gripers and groaners out in the street.

    Both parties have them hence our 50-50, have your cake and eat it too country.  That's also why compromise is the only way either side moves it's agenda forward, however incrementally.

    Which side though? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    Ahh well that is the million dollar question (none / 0) (#24)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    I think it will vary depending on the ebb and flow of either side's positions and the state of country.  However, it helps when your side has their man/woman in the position to sign the bill into law.  Some malcontents seem to be unable to reconcile this part against their own desires.

    Parent
    IT is the 10 cents question (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    The answer is easy as pie - the GOP is winning.

    Parent
    Under Bush or Obama? (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    I'm sure you have your own opinion, but I can't seem to remember any legislation signed into law under Obama that is GOP-only friendly.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    "GOP-only"? Good question? (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    I would say that the GOP has been (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    quite good at getting Obama to compromise as a way of advancing their agenda.

    But, that's less about the political deftness of the Repubicans than it is about what should be painfully obvious: it's an agenda Obama shares, and he has the full cooperation of Reid and Pelsosi.

    Parent