home

Obama to Propose $300 Billion Job Package

President Obama will give a speech Thursday. He's going to propose a $300 billion job package.

Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts as well as revenue increases, that he will present next week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nation’s debt.

Almost half the stimulus would come from tax cuts, which include an extension of a two-percentage-point reduction in the payroll tax paid by workers due to expire Dec. 31 and a new decrease in the portion of the tax paid by employers.

Will he mention raising the age for Medicare eligibility? Jay Carney said yesterday the speech would "include some new proposals that you have not heard us talk about.” We haven't heard Obama talk about raising the age for Medicare eligibility, only reports that he was okay with it. This better not be one of his proposals. If it is, his pink slip is coming.

< John Edwards Seeks Dismissal of Indictment, Alleges Prosecutorial Vindictiveness | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    20 Trillion for financial Masters/Criminals (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    Chump change for employing regular folks.

    Enough said.

    And don't forget ... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    the "all you can eat" war buffet for oil companies and defense contractors.

    Parent
    Feh (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    this is another small bore timid proposal when we need BIG thinking right now.

    $300 Billion is not small bore (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    The problem lies elsewhere:  the composition of the package, and the cuts that will be proposed as part of it.....

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    headline says 300 million not billion.

    Parent
    And, the headline is not correct (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    Why not go on the merits....

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    what he is offering for 300 billion is wrong on the merits but there's no reason to even start on the merits if it's 300 million. 300 million isn't even worth taking the time to discuss.

    Parent
    Good lord, (3.50 / 2) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    Can everyone leave the typo behind now?

    I did say the compostion and cuts made a difference.....

    Parent

    Or, go to the link provided. (none / 0) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:50:57 PM EST
    Also, the speech is not tonight, just initially proposed for tonight.

    Parent
    I fixed the headline to billion (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:00:09 AM EST
    What does Medicare & SS have to do with jobs? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:13:31 PM EST


    Exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    Medicare and SS have nothing to do with jobs. Obama is using the current situation as an excuse to get the cuts he and other Republicans want regardless.

    Parent
    Nothing. That's why it is not going to be in the (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    jobs speech, but in a proposal to the cat food Commission II next week. Let's see how much coverage it gets.

    Parent
    I'd bet that extending Medicare down to age 50 (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by seabos84 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    would be GREAT for jobs -

    I'm a 51 year old teacher in Washington state - how many people who are running on fumes would bail out if they knew their health care problems wouldn't leave 'em living under a blue tarp in the woods or a parking lot?

    You need to make about 8 bucks an hour just to pay for my own riddled with exemptions health "care" - WHERE are those jobs?

    If you had a bunch of people long on the tooth bail out of jobs that they ONLY keep for the health 'care', you'd have a lot of movement in the job market - which would probably open a ton of part time 8 buck an hour jobs for the recent retirees who could use that 8 bucks on mortgage / rent / casinos / family ...

    rmm.

    Parent

    I retired at 58 (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by robert72 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:18:50 PM EST
    because I had an idea to begin a new company based on what I knew about teaching. I am now 74 and enjoying the benefits as the idea worked and I have a profitable company. I was able to do this because health insurance was not a consideration in the slightest. I'm Canadian.

    Parent
    Calling this a "Jobs Plan" ... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    is like calling ketchup a vegetable.

    (Those with long political memories will see what I did there.)

    But Tip actually had a photo op (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    eating Ketchup as  I recall.....Great political theater.

    For those worried about the Catfood Commission II?  Come on, someone should do it....

    Parent

    the flip side of that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    Dems start replacing ketchup with vegetables and all of a sudden we're elitists.

    Those with short political memories will notice that I'm not making any clever analogies.  TIL.

    Parent

    A Typo Here... A Typo There... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    Pretty soon you're talking about real money.

    (bows)

    gave $50,000 to 6 million unemployed families for the year. Other wise it is complete crap.

    Payroll tax cuts to people who already have a job is not going to get them to spend it especially when they are worried about whether they will keep their jobs and more importantly are worried about whether they can ever retire.

    Blah blah! yawn!

    True (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    But it will weaken SS in the long run.  So there's that.

    Parent
    Start filling out that slip (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TJBuff on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    Klein

    "Getting less attention in the media is the follow-up speech the White House is planning, which will lay out a specific deficit-reduction agenda that not only meets the $1.5 trillion goal of the "supercommittee," but exceeds it and pays for the new jobs spending. These proposals will look quite similar to the grand bargain the White House offered Speaker John Boehner, and liberal groups are grimly preparing for the administration to call for raising the Medicare eligibility age."

    Would $300 Billion do a lot? (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:46:00 AM EST
    "There's no hard and fast number, but ... I have in mind something like $300 Billion, you could do quite a lot that's actually targeted on jobs."
    Professor Paul Krugman, Nov 12, 2009

    Doubtful . . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    Almost half the stimulus would come from tax cuts

    vs

    I have in mind something like $300 Billion, you could do quite a lot that's actually targeted on jobs.


    Parent
    Apparently he intends to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    "stimulate" by further starving Social Security which was previously was uncommonly healthy.  

    Seems to me it's taser-like stimulation.

    Parent

    Depends on the tax cuts I would think. (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    Yes, they seem to be working so well (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    which ones are you championing?

    Parent
    Ones (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    for employers who hire the unemployed, for example.

    Parent
    They (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    aren't going to hire the unemployed because they don't need workers now. Do you think that employers are going to hire people to sit around?

    Parent
    I've mentioned this recently (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    The bonus/tax break to hire the unemployed has been a huge windfall in my area -- to the contract recruiting firms.

    It has helped this much:  traditionally it has been easier to find a job if you already have a job.  Much harder after you've been laid off.  This credit/bonus gives the edge to those who are not presently working.  Speaking as a contractor, that's not nothing.  But it has not resulted in a single new job.  The consulting firms would have worked to staff that position anyway.

    Parent

    Wasn't that already tried? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    in Maryland

    Parent
    with Corporate America (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    sitting on two trillion dollars....and no jobs, I'm sure another trillion will do it.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    If after ten years you haven't learned that tax cuts don't do anything to create jobs, then I don't know what to say.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Tax Cuts Don't Work.  

    If tax cuts were effective policy, we'd be swimming in prosperity. And the payroll tax cut was a horrendous idea in its own right to begin with. Extending it and adding more on top with a giveaway to employers is just adding insult to injury.

    Recall Luther Gullick's memorandum which contained FDR's famous quote. Excerpt:

    In the course of this discussion I raised the question of the ultimate abandonment the pay roll taxes in connection with old age security and unemployment relief in the event of another period of depression. I suggested that it had been a mistake to levy these taxes in the 1930's when the social security program was orgiginally adopted.

    FDR said, "I guess you're right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren't a matter of economics, they're straight politics."

    Obama is either incompetent or complicit. I don't think Obama is incompetent.

    Parent

    As you don't want it, you can send your (none / 0) (#41)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    "Making Work Pay" money to me. I'll make "effective" use of it.

    Thanks!

    Parent

    You are... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    ...a special kind of person. Very special. (You figure it out. Start with the fact that "Making Work Pay" was a tax credit that had nothing to do with payroll taxes.)

    Parent
    MWP wasn't a cut to the tax rate, but it was a cut (none / 0) (#66)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    to the amount of taxes folks had to pay. Which made it - in effect - a type of tax cut. Which left money in working folks' budgets for other things. Which helped stimulate the economy.

    If you still think it was the wrong kind of tax cut, I'll take yours.

    And as for calling me special? You just stay classy there. Real classy.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    isn't a "yours" to take.  The MWP tax credit expired.

    Parent
    Berry received it for two years, I'm sure (none / 0) (#76)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    I really doubt it was seen as "ineffective" and thus shredded, burnt, or refused in any way.

    But if it's still sitting there, causing distress because it was tax money from Obama, I'd give it a good home.

    Parent

    You sure do... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    ...sell out cheap. And you sure do engage in a lot of non sequitur reasoning. And you sure do miss the point when someone tries to point out to you that payroll tax cuts which serve to undermine Social Security and the MWP tax credit are not the same thing. Your attempt to drag MWP into this and equate it to the SS-undermining meddling with the payroll tax cut is what makes you special. But damn...you still sell out cheap.

    FDR's famous quote, one more time:

    In the course of this discussion I raised the question of the ultimate abandonment the pay roll taxes in connection with old age security and unemployment relief in the event of another period of depression. I suggested that it had been a mistake to levy these taxes in the 1930's when the social security program was orgiginally adopted.

    FDR said, "I guess you're right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren't a matter of economics, they're straight politics."



    Parent
    This is just silly (4.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    The issue is/was whether tax cuts in general, or MWP credits in particular, are/were an effective economic stimulus for the economy.  Whether or not someone accepted or refused the credit is irrelevant.  If the government gave you $10 million in cash, it would help you out personally, but that doesn't mean it's an effective means of stimulating the economy.

    Parent
    Whether someone accepted stimulus money (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:23:21 PM EST
    while decrying it as worthless and "ineffective" is very relevant to the discussion. Smacks of the whole, "Your winnings, sir." "Oh, thank you very much." scene in Casablanca. The blanket statement was that no tax cuts/credits are ever effective. I disagreed, and gave an example of a tax program that many workers benefitted from that also stimulated the economy.

    As to your example, I don't know what sort of 90210 neighborhood you're from, but around here 10 million dollars would house, feed, and clothe 400 families for well over a year. It would be a huge economic stimulus - here. And that's what working folks care about, their families and their neighbors. A bridge repair here, a new school there, pretty soon you've pumped 10 million into a neighborhood - and helped.

    By the way, the name calling and insults - that's the silly part.

    Parent

    No it's not (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    Apart from your analogy to a work of fiction, whether someone received the MWP tax credit or any other tax cut is wholely irrelevant to a discussion of whether the MWP credit (or any tax cut) is an effective way to stimulate the economy as a whole.  Why does it even matter?  The fact that someone may have received a MWP credit which might provide a small, individual benefit does not mean either: 1) that tax credits are an effective form of economic stimulus, or 2) that a person who points out the ineffective nature of tax cuts is somehow hypocritical for benefiting from the tax credit.

    The whole "neighborhood/community" discussion is also silly.  The discussion (and article) are focused on whether tax cuts are an effective stimulus for the economy as a whole.  Of course you could give an individual (or even a small community) $10 million and it would serve as a stimulus, but that wouldn't do much good for the US economy as a whole, regardless of the fact that you think it's "what working folks care about".

    Parent

    From the article you can see that (none / 0) (#108)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    the 300 billion in stimulus is a mixture of "tax cuts, infrastructure spending and direct aid to state and local governments." In a discussion of the article I'd say that means those topics are fair game.

    I said that tax cuts/credits that benefit workers can also be a help to the economy; you said no. Fine. We disagree. You said $10 million is nothing, I said it's a big deal, especially when it's spent on local infrastructure and as "aid to state and local government" projects, for example bridges and schools. You said that sort of infrastructure spending as stimulus "wouldn't do much good for the US economy as a whole" and is just silly talk. Fine. We disagree on that as well.

    I'm curious about your ideas for stimulating the economy in ways that don't include programs intended to keep money in circulation and put people to work. Care to share?

    Parent

    Of course the topics are "fair game" (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    But that's a completely different issue than suggesting someone has to refuse the MWP in order to point out that tax cuts aren't an effective method of stimulating the economy.


    I said that tax cuts/credits that benefit workers can also be a help to the economy; you said no.

    Actually, I didn't, but what I would say is that tax cuts aren't very effective at stimulating the current economy, and they're definitely not the most efficient in terms of "bang-for-the-buck".


    You said $10 million is nothing, I said it's a big deal, especially when it's spent on local infrastructure and as "aid to state and local government" projects, for example bridges and schools. You said that sort of infrastructure spending as stimulus "wouldn't do much good for the US economy as a whole" and is just silly talk. Fine. We disagree on that as well.

    Actually, what I said was that $10 million wouldn't do much in terms of stimulating the US economy - it's a drop in the ocean.  As far as infrastructure spending, I said no such thing, but that (once again) is an entirely different issue than tax cuts.

    I'm curious about your ideas for stimulating the economy in ways that don't include programs intended to keep money in circulation and put people to work. Care to share?

    Sure - I'd spend the money where we get the greatest efficiency - something along the lines of Stiglitz.  Spending on infrastructure, education and energy programs, which will reduce unemployment in the short term and increase productivity and competitiveness in the long term.  I'd leave out any household tax cuts, except for those targeted specifically at the poor.  People with high debt, upside-down mortgages and unemployment worries are unlikely to spend any saved by a tax credit/cut - they'll pay off debt or save it, particularly those that can afford to do so.  Not true with direct benefits to those who are "working class" or poor (i.e. unemplyment benefits).  Same with business tax cuts, unless they're tied to additional investments (i.e. a temporary, incremental investment tax credit to encourage businesses to invest now when the economy needs it).

    Parent

    To the point, yes, you could do a lot (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    if it was targeted on direct creation of jobs. But if over half of it is on tax cuts, it will not be as effective. We have already seen that movie.

    Parent
    More than half of that money (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    is an extension of unemployment benefits.
    Much of the rest is tax cuts.
    Did Krugman recommend more tax cuts? I doubt it.


    Parent
    that's cute (3.00 / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    you missed a letter

    Parent
    In your haste to bash ABG, you (3.50 / 2) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    hit the wrong target.....

    Funny, how indiscriminate fire does that.

    Parent

    I'll bite (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    No idea what you are talking about.

    But if we're at the level of countering by pointing to typos, the terrorists have won.

    Parent

    typos (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    or you know, decimal places.

    Million, Billion.

    Details :)

    Parent

    Wait a second (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    Jeralyn made the typo.  Obama is proposing $300 billion, not $300 million as she states.

    My original point stands.  

    Parent

    So, what is the typo, exactly? (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    Was Krugman talking about millions instead of billions?

    All I could divine from your post was how much you do not like ABG.

    Parent

    In his attempt to bash me (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    he missed the fact that Jeralyn was the one who made the small typo.

    I read the story and quoted the correct number.  CST apparently did not.

    Parent

    Ey Vey (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    first of all, I am not a "he".  Second of all, I do not hate ABG, and if you actually read my comments, I have defended ABG in the past, or at least his "right" to post whatever he wants here, and tend to not pile on.

    Yes, I read Jeralyn's headline and assumed ABG made a mistake.  My bad.  I don't think I was being particularly hatefull about it, I actually thought it was kind of funny, as those types of typos are small ones but biggies.  So save your fire and anger and pre-emptive agression for someone else.

    Sorry I thought you made a typo.

    Parent

    Apologies for calling you (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    "he".  You have to understand from my perspective that every comment I make at this point is blasted.

    It's knocked the humor out of my commenting unfortunately.

    Parent

    Bite your tongue (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    Your commenting is anything but humorless.

    Parent
    I understand that (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    But try to understand each commenter is an individual, it might help get through the weeds a bit.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    I admit that it sometimes appears to be a monolith.

    Parent
    ABG thought Obama's jobs proposal... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    ...was for 300 Billion with a B, when it is 300 Million with an M.  A gigantic difference.  And a very meaningful one.  The meaning: good jobs for good people don't matter all that much.

    Parent
    Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:00:09 PM EST
    I know the urge to pile on a fan of Obama's had you thinking this was a good comment coming out of the gate, but . . .

    Bottom line: This exchange was a great example of the fact that many here have gotten to the stage of jumping on any and all positive Obama news, regardless of whether they have actually read it or not.

    Thank you Goddess Karma for your quick work.

    Parent

    Um, what? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    If you think a bill yet again larded with tax-cuts, which have proven time and time again not to work, well, okay.  That said, my man, I pile on Obama when he deserved to be piled onto.  With DADT, I'm glad as hell it got done on his watch.  With domestic economic performance, he is an abject failure.  

    BTW, I don't understand what this exchange represents except a typo.  You have had to eat crow in the past, we all have, part of being human.  Now, go look at the last open thread, where you ask a question about how many speeches Obama has made compared to other prez's, and what psychological effect it is having on voters.  Now, you could have Googled the math answer about speeches yourself, but you didn't.  So people responded mostly to the psychological part of your query.  You didn't like this and posted you gripe in the form of a mock dialogue which started with you asking: "Hey do you think Serena is going to win the US open this year?"  This is not, in any way, like the political question you asked.  So that exchange is evidence of what?

    Lastly, I don't hate Obama, I am severely disappointed in him, and I think he is a terrible politician.  I also share a lot of the same kinf of family history with him, and I am very sympathetic to where he comes from, as I consider it a common ground between us.  That said, I will pile on when he asks for it.  And "jobs" bills that are mostly tax cuts are time-tested, historically proven bullsh*t.  That is the truth.  THAT is why I am so pissed.

    Have no doubt you're a decent guy, love your parents, are good to old folks, etc., but I have no time for people who constantly want to make excuses for the President.  I never made them for Clinton, now the second most disappointing president of my lifetime, I ain't making them for O.

    Parent

    If Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    was one of the most disappointing POTUS's for you, it puts your disappointment with Obama in a certain perspective, you know?

    Parent
    It shows that Liberals and Progressives (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    will never have a President that truly supports all their ideals.....

    Just life.....

    Parent

    You just made the same mistake (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    It is billions.....So, you are bashing someone whom I don't think you meant to bash......

    Parent
    And I acknowledge the misread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    That said, the bill is tax cuts.  Historic bullsh*t with no proven stimulative effect were it needs it most.  Compare again the multi trillions, and we still don't know how much it is, handed over without question to those who destroyed to economy, with the yet again paltry change and lip service given to employing people.  

    300 million would've been crazy, 300 billon is still far short, and we all know it.  We all KNOW what needs to be done, and I am utterly baffled that it isn't even considered.  You cannot have a society where so much of the wealth is controlled by so few.  You HAVE to get a lot of money into the hands of average people fairly quickly, which means employing them for nothing more than the sake of employing them.  Human dignity.   Technology + population growth = trouble for eons to come if we don't accept that employment cannot possibly be based on merely whether a person can be profitable to another person.

    We're continuing to p*sss into the wind.

    Parent

    Worse yet, it is social security tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    which weakens that system and is starting to feel to me like 'starving the beast'. Grover Norquist must be proud.

    Parent
    touche (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    ahh. I actually misread it. (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:55:05 AM EST
    I'll take that lump.

    Parent
    No, the proposal is for 300 billion (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    The typo is not yours.....

    Parent
    Ah, I am greatly relieved. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    Not that it's anywhere near big enough, but I was about to think Obama more nuts than I could've suspected.

    Parent
    me too. 300 million seemed hardly worth the effort (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn, Obama's framework (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    for reducing the deficit including the changes to Medicare and Medicaid will come out next week.

    Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts as well as revenue increases, that he will present next week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nation's debt [...]

    Obama will unveil a framework for the deficit reductions next week, including changes to Medicare and Medicaid, in addition to other cuts in contributions to military pensions and farm subsidies. link



    Who will be left to vote for Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    when most people have been thrown under the bus.

    The economy is in serious hurt and unemployment is not coming down anytime soon. More people will be without health care in 2012 than when Obama took office and premiums for health insurance have increased after Obama spent 18 months on his unpopular POS health insurance legislation. Labor is less than happy with Obama. How many more people will cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Military pensions, farm subsidies and abandoning environmental goals such as ozone regulations eliminate from Obama support group?

    Parent

    Oh nice one... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    Unveil the unpopular stuff to the Congressional Panel, not in the Big Speech. Closed door session?

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    What size and type of stimulus do Obama's critics believe will pass the House.

    If what he is proposing is too small, too limited and too conservative, please provide an alternative that you believe would convince the House to reverse their positions and pass.

    I will hang up and listen.

    Pertinent point. I hope he is going to propose (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    things he can do by moving money around, or printing more.

    He should at least say things he wants to do, whether they will pass or not.

    There is a good chance the House will not even pass the tax cuts, since Obama wants them. But if the House GOP wants them, the Senate Dems should leverage some spending against them.

    Parent

    I think the argument is that nothing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    constructive will pass the House.

    So, make a proposal that would really help if enacted, that adheres to good economic principles.....Sure, it will be defeated, but it will set the stage for an election in about 12 months....

    And, at least start out strong.....

    And, it looks like another bill that will do more harm than good if it comes with cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

    If it is based on cuts to Medicare, I hope Grijalva and Barney Frank vote against it......

    Parent

    if it's based on cuts to medicare (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    or social security they will.

    Also, there was some talk before this that he was outlining things that could be done without congress.  How he can do that or how much of that he can do I am not certain of, but that was the earlier chatter.

    I think you're right, he's got to start outlining a cohesive, coherent plan, whether it passes or not.  Democrats need something to run on.  And if it's touching any sacred cows you can forget it.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    To be clear, there is the sense that he should advocate a policy that he knows won't pass for the politics.

    If that is correct, isn't there an argument that he should advocate a plan that may pass, help a little bit and help a bit less on the politics?

    Parent

    For the politics, and also to prepare the turf (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    for down the road if (when) another stimulus is needed. I guess that is part of the politics. If he had asked a lot bigger than what he knew could pass in 2009, his argument would be a lot better today.

    The negotiating for what will pass will start after the speech. He can do his 'next best thing' advocating at that point.

    Parent

    Yes, advocate policies that will help, if (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:25:43 PM EST
    not solve, the problem. Even if they won't pass the House. Do not advocate policies that make things worse.

    Tax cuts do not help, and I believe are making things worse for SS. So, do not propose or advocate for them. Giving even more money to corporations who are already sitting on piles of cash will not create jobs and will increase the deficit, which will lead to more cuts to SS and Medicare and food stamps, etc. Even though these might, might pass the House in some form, they will not make things better and may  make things worse. So, Do Not Propose Them.

    Things that will help include:

    Direct aid to the states to retain/rehire teachers, infrastructure building/rebuilding, actually doing some of the weatherization/retrofitting I keep hearing Dems talk about, extending unemployment for the long and egregiously long term unemployed, and reinstating COBRA assistance.

    Obama could make these proposals, explain how and why they will help bring down unemployment and, because working people pay taxes, how they will also help with the deficit.  And he could hammer the Republicans if they refuse to pass them.

    Proposing useless and/or harmful policies just because they might pass is worse than doing nothing.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    even the most skeptical economists believe that tax cuts help somewhat on a net basis, although maybe only a small amount.

    I just don't see the point of Obama advocating a position that the right will use as a rallying cry.

    If he says we need a trillion in stimulus, let's say, I don't think the right moves at all.  They just turn that into a more effective ad for 2012.

    Parent

    Don't go with beliefs. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    Beliefs are for the religious and the superstitious. Try going with the evidence: Everything You Know is Wrong. Tax Cuts Don't Work

    Parent
    What if he said we need a million (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    jobs in the next 3-6 months? And here is how we can do that? And he then laid out the items in my previous post?

    People know what a job is. They know someone has to hire people and put them to work and pay them. It would be so very easy for Obama to explain that, even though they are rolling in dough, corporations are refusing to hire. So, the government must do it.

    The American people are demanding jobs. Obama should give us jobs.

    What kind of sound bite does the GOP get if what Obama says is "Here is how we will create jobs for the American people."

    If the right wants to rally around the no jobs for Americans flagpole, well, let them. And then hang them from that very flagpole.

    My god, this is politics 101. It is not, as Jeff said earlier this week, rocket surgery.

    Parent

    What Digby said (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    Here's hoping that the President doesn't do that and comes in with a big jobs program. He won't pass it --- they're nuts and everybody knows it. But somebody ought to make the case for what needs to be done, just so that people understand that something could be done. It won't make any difference in people's lives --- that ship has sailed --- but at least some tiny piece of liberalism might have a slight chance of surviving this.

    Her top few posts are fantastic on this topic.

    Parent

    He said that with the original stimulus (none / 0) (#90)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    It worked to save/create the jobs he said it would and the GOP fought him all the way and still doesn't even acknowledge that it helped.

    Now what?

    The fundamental problem is that the opposition party is willing to lie directly while we are not. No matter how effective Obama's message is, the GOP will not budge.  They are immune to facts.

    Recall that in the budget showdown, huge majorities favored taxing the rich.  It was the exact scenario we wanted.  And it didn't effect them at all because of their internal party dynamics. Their base is far right. Dem base is moderate. That matters.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    can't sell "saving jobs". That's nearly impossible and the job creation was anemic at best.

    Look Obama really messed himself over by what he did in the first two years. He doesn't seem to get Politics 101.

    Also passing GOP legislation is likely to make things worse. So if he's not going to propose something that will most likely work and the GOP won't vote for it so what? He's no worse off or might even be worse off doing something that can "pass". This is Obama's problem. He is more concerned with having something "pass" than making sure it's the right policy. This is the same stance he took with healthcare. He did an omnibus bill that would "pass" but that wasn't popular with the electorate. He needs to learn to keep things simple.

    Go to the public with a one page bill that says here's the funding for 1,000,000 million jobs in this country. Sure the GOP will vote against it but they'll have to explain in the next election exactly why they voted against 1 million jobs for the country. They can yammer about them being government jobs but so what? People who are hungry, homeless and have any other variety of problems aren't going to care where the jobs come from. They are only going to care whether they have a job or not.

    Parent

    You Are Misstating the Nature of the Problem (none / 0) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    The problem isn't that you can't sell job creation.  The problem is that higher taxes and more government spending as job creators is a counterintuitive concept that doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker or sound bite.

    In short, the sales job that progressive have is far more difficult than the sales job that conservatives have.

    To take your example, you can go to the public with a one page bill that says "here is the funding for a million jobs" but that paper is going to look silly if distrust of government causes people to believe that government spending does not create jobs.

    The issue of promoting the policy is far more difficult than the simplistic expectations you provide.  

    When people distrust the government, Dems are hurt more than conservatives by nature of their principles.  In a time where government is not trusted, the task of convincing the public that we have the answer is even more difficult because our answer depends on more government.

    This is just the reality we face.

    Parent

    You say (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:03:04 PM EST
    we are building energy plants. Here's the funding. The people in this country need jobs. The private sector won't do it so I'm going to put people back to work in this country. You see? It's not that hard. The GOP can talk about the private sector but the fact of matter is that the private sector is NOT creating jobs. The reason why people distrust the government is because people like Obama and the GOP have shown that the government will absolutely do nothing to help the citizens of this country. That trajectory can be changed in a heartbeat by an effective program.

    If the government can't do anything and the private sector refuses to do anything then you are signing onto accepting long term high unemployment for the citizens of this country.

    Parent

    By the time Obama is done (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    the Dem base may be even more moderate. The question that remains is what percentage of the population will consider themselves part of the Democratic Party. That demographic is getting smaller each year under Obama's so called care.

    From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low. link


    Parent
    ::sigh:: (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    Dem base is moderate

    So saith the "liberal" ABG.

    But it's true now, I expect.  The historical rock-solid Dem base are now the "where are you gonna go"-ers as O goes on the hunt for the elusive, fickle independents.

    Without care and feeding, I think more than a few of those "where are you gonna go "-ers might wander off.

    Parent

    What help (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    can tax cuts do? We've had them for 10 years and have pretty much shed jobs the entire time.

    The only good thing I see coming out of this is that the GOP is no longer saying that tax cuts create jobs or that they pay for themselves. If they are going to demand spending cuts they they are finally conceding that they don't pay for themselves.

    Parent

    I see what you mean about the rallying cry (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    Negative ad...scary voice intones...Obama wanted to spend money your children don't have...

    But the answer to that is easy if the economy is still in the tank - Republicans refused to do what it would take to fix the economy.

    Obama can't blame Bush forever - at some point he has to be able to blame the current bunch of GOPers.

    Parent

    to be clear (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    I do not think anything worth passing will pass this house.  So no.  We need to win the house back.  In the mean time, do what you can within the executive branch.

    The Republican house has shown they are not here to play nice, they are not here to even attempt to fix the country, they are only there to take their pound of flesh.  I propose we stop giving it to them, and in the meantime, propose an actual alternative that people can stand behind and vote for, so that in the next election we can maybe take the house back.  I see that as being completely critical to getting anything even incrementaly good passed in this climate.

    If it's legislation that has a remote chance of passing the house, it will do more harm than good.  Because the house republicans will not vote for anything unless they get everything.  Those are the cards we have.

    Parent

    I'd (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    like to win the House back as much as anyone, but I'm not under any illusion that it would make the slightest bit of difference.

    Look what the dems did with their hold on congress from 2006 until 2010.

    Bupkis.

    Parent

    agree to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    For me, its the difference between incremental progress and backwards progress.  But it's not nothing.

    They could at least extend unemployment benefits.

    Parent

    On (none / 0) (#112)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    the issues of the wars and civil liberties, I did not note even incremental progress during the time the Democrats held both Houses of Congress.

    Maybe you're right, and they would extend unemployment benefits - but seeing how readily Obama gave those benefits away recently, I doubt it.

    I still haven't recovered from the trauma of seeing the Democrats take over both Houses in 2006 with a specific mandate to end the war in Iraq - only to roll over to allow Bush to send even more troops.

    No.

    I don't see the slightest glimmer that the democrats care even a smidgeon of an iota more that the republicans about the welfare of the powerless.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#111)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    I see the logic in that because it is based in reality.  You acknowledge that none of the pieces of the progressive agenda would pass.

    There are still people here who believe that there is a way that Obama could create a miracle that would cause the House to vote for real stimulus.  

    There is not.  Any proposed tactics have to assume that to be the case.  

    Parent

    Examples, please (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    I think you are confusing us with DailyKos or something.  Or else, once again, making up your own narrative.

    Parent
    That comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    is what you call being clear?

    "There is a sense"?

    Parent

    The president has choices, and it's (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    important to understand that there are other choices which could benefit the vast majority of the country to a much greater extent than the plain-vanilla of tax cuts and spending cuts that Obama keeps proposing as if they actually work (bold is mine):

    The President has all the tools he needs right now to force deficit reduction far beyond what he will probably even announce. It's called the veto pen. Doing nothing and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, along with other expiring tax breaks, will more than achieve primary balance in the medium term. That's the consensus of the Congressional Budget Office from a couple weeks back. The President could simply say he will not sign any extension of these plans without offsets, leave it to Congress to figure out the details, and be done with deficit reduction, while demanding his jobs plan get enacted. He could say the same thing on jobs, saying he will veto Catfood Commission recommendations unless they contain his jobs plan, with the trigger on defense and discretionary cuts backing him up.

    But that's not this President's agenda. He thinks the Clinton tax rates were too high. He thinks that raising the Medicare eligibility age, one of the worst policy ideas imaginable, is a "modest adjustment" to "strengthen" the program. So all these ideas for how to deal with an age of political hostage-taking is a wish and a hope.

    By putting Medicare eligibility on the table, and I'm sure Medicaid blended rate and chained CPI aren't too far behind, the focus becomes about cuts rather than jobs, against the explicit wishes of the public. In the end, Republicans can pick and choose, taking tax cuts and entitlement cuts and tossing out the public investment and overall tax hikes. This didn't work out during the debt limit deal, but with the trigger supposedly forcing action in the Catfood Commission, the urgency for a Democratic capitulation will be great, especially if the party leader puts out a plan of this stripe.

    Nobody told the President to pivot to deficit reduction in late 2009, and nobody's telling him to do so now. There was no public outcry then, and even after years of pounding from the agenda-setting elites, there's not really a public outcry now. This is a conscious choice on the part of a President endlessly searching for that "win" on deficits. A lot of Americans will lose in that exchange.

    So, where's the stimulus in Obama's plan?

    What's more, $112 billion of this $300 billion would come just from that extension of the payroll tax cut, which is already in place. That's not stimulative, it's just an extension of current law. So would be the $55 billion or so for unemployment benefits. Letting them expire might be undesirable, but just keeping them in place would just maintain the status quo, which last month created something on the order of zero jobs. The rest of the items amount to $130-$140 billion, not nearly enough to fill the demand gap hole. Actual direct public works spending is scant, and the supply-side faerie dust irrelevant to the actual problem.

    This is weak tea, that weak as it is, probably stands no chance of passing the House.

    My sense of what will happen is that the tax cuts will stay, there will be more spending cuts, changes to safety net programs, and any actual stimulative aspects of the plan will disappear.

    Really too bad so much time and political capital was wasted on a warmed-over Republican health whatever plan, instead of picking up where the stimulus left off in early 2009, and pushing real, Democratic policy while Obama had some wind at his back, huh?  Of course, as we know now, we would have needed a president who actually believed in real Democratic policy to make that happen, and given that we still don't have that deeply Democratic president, I think we're doomed to see even more GOP-flavored policy for the rest of Obama's term.

    Parent

    Obama needed to go bold... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    ...in order to change the debate and move the playing field (the Overton Window) onto Democratic ground, or at least closer to Democratic ground.

    I commented in response to Krugman's Op-Ed (The Fatal Distraction) a few days ago:

    You write near the end that you are "personally prepared to cut Mr. Obama a lot of slack on the specifics of his (jobs) proposal, as long as it's big and bold." I have a feeling that you are going to wind up terribly disappointed. President Obama does not do bold. The bright side? You'll have a lot of company to share that disappointment with.

    And here we are. At least we have company.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    OK, I disagree but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that Obama screwed up royally and move on.

    What now?

    The sentiment seems to be that Obama should propose something bold that will never pass the House for the sake of optics and politics.  Then try to do whatever he can do without legislative help.

    Is that right?

    Parent

    No, that is not right (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    Just for the record, I want you to know that I find the vast majority of what you post to be disingenuous or worse. People have attempted to explain this to you repeatedly. It's now up to you to get it. I don't think you will.

    Parent
    Just for you, ABG (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    In good faith I offer the theory that answers your question about why pushing good policy even when enacting that policy at that particular moment may not be possible is the right thing to do and what the man with the biggest bully pulpit on the planet should be doing. Here it is: The Overton Window, Illustrated

    Tiny excerpt:

    The way to shift the Overton Window is by moving the edges, by pushing ideas that are even more extreme than what is actually desired.

    As the Overton Window shifts along the spectrum, a specific policy (a notch in the graph) goes through the following phases of public acceptance:

        - Unthinkable
        - Radical
        - Acceptable
        - Sensible
        - Popular
        - Policy

    Go read. After that, if you still don't get it, I give up...'cause it will be because you don't want to get it.

    Parent

    I get the Overton Window (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    and enjoyed reading the post.

    However, you have to overlay the requirements to win re-election on top of that.  A strategy that makes sense for moving the window may not make sense for winning the next election (people generally don't like to vote for angrily fighting failures . . . they vote for accomplishments, even minor ones).

    The question becomes whether the movement of the window is worth POTUS Perry or Romney.

    My answer is no.

    Now we can debate about whether the moderate path will gain Obama re-election.  I think the jury is still out there because this strategy does not pay dividends until Obama is on stage next to a crazy person demanding that we abolish social security.  By definition, it will become apparent whether it has worked or not when Romney and Perry are battling it out in a few months over who can go more Tea Party.  When Obama's pragmatism and moderacy is compared to that, his standing will rise.

    But that's not where we are.

    Parent

    So let me get this right (none / 0) (#115)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:04:25 PM EST
    I set forth a good faith disagreement (which is echoed by Yglesias, Chait, Jonathon Alter and many, many others and you disagree with it.

    Then, instead of just saying that you disagree for reasons you espouse, you accuse me of being disingenuous because, apparently, no serious person could have an opinion that you disagree with and has to be lying, cheating, and posses all other manner of dastardly characteristics.

    And you think that an objective reader would agree with you.

    Funny.

    But blast away.  

    I am just trying to figure out why all of this anger and righteous rage isn't directed towards republicans on a daily basis. That's the part that the aliens receiving our signals on Planet Kolub don't understand I bet.

    Parent

    Excuse me, but (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    do you rage against the hurricane, or do you rage against the shoddy FEMA response?

    Waiting eagerly for your reply.

    What's disingenuous is your continuing to make the same arguments and pose the same questions as if you hadn't had them answered here 100 or so times before.


    Parent

    I accuse you... (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    ...of being disingenuous not based on anything in this thread in particular, but on the large body of your posts where you engage in repetitive talking points and just generally go out of your way to be obtuse or otherwise not get it.

    You were doing fine in response to the post on the Overton Window...right up until you got to "however", right after which I pretty much stopped reading.

    From my perspective, you and people who act like you are not helpful. In fact, from my perspective, you and people like you are the very opposite of helpful. In your "reasonableness", you are helping the Democratic Party and Obama (both of which you profess to support) do nothing but lose. And then you blame others for it.

    Let me give you an excerpt from Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

    The reader may think that I am attributing Svengali-like powers to GOP operatives able to manipulate a zombie base to do their bidding. It is more complicated than that. Historical circumstances produced the raw material: the deindustrialization and financialization of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle class - without job security (or even without jobs), with pensions and health benefits evaporating and with their principal asset deflating in the collapse of the housing bubble. Their fears are not imaginary; their standard of living is shrinking.

    What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist" Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.

    While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.

    How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

    You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don't make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the "estate tax," it is the "death tax." Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

    It was not always thus.

    Take your middle of the road Obamapologist "centrism" and the sorry excuse for a president that is Barack Obama and shove it. The only way the Republicans will be kept from driving this nation further into the ditch is to resist them and to realize that they view all of this as war, and any offer of compromise as defeat. They'll take all this sorry president will give them and demand more.

    You know what you get when you compromise with crazy? When you embrace the policies of crazy? When instead of doing the right thing, you agree to do the half crazy thing? You get crazy.

    Progress in trying times does not come from the "reasonable." It never has. That's why history reveres Winston Churchill and not Neville Chamblain. That's why we revere FDR and not Hoover. And that's why Obama is going to go down as the man who squandered the best opportunity to pull things back and bring about transformative change since the Great Depression.

    I do not support Barack Obama and I do not have patience for his apologists. In my book, you're helping to enable the crazy, and I'm in the market for sane.

    Obama must go. And Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, must be seen as the ones to take him down.

    It's too late to do anything about the crazy under this president. The last best chance is gone. Frittered away. Things now have nowhere to go but down, and down is where they will go. Hopefully, once we hit bottom, the nation will wake up and a man or a woman who is qualified to lead and understands what being a leader means will emerge and drive the narrative.  But that's for down the road. Because now it really is too late. Obama blew it. And apologists for him make me ill.

    Parent

    My sentiment, speaking for myself only, (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:06:22 PM EST
    is that Obama should propose policies that, if enacted, will actually make things better. You know, things that will create jobs and create them fast. Things that will shoot money into the economy now. He should propose them because they are the right thing to do, make that argument to the American people, and challenge Congress (Republicans) to work with to put Americans back to work.

    Yes, even if he thinks, even if you think, even if I think, the House will not pass them.

    He should not propose things that will not solve the problem, even if they might pass. Proposing things that do not solve the problem, proposing things just because they might pass-- that will be for the sake of optics and politics.

    And, if he makes good proposals and they do not pass, then, of course he should do anything and everything he can do w/o Congress.

    This is a frikken' crisis. People's livelihoods and lives are on the line here.  And I don't mean politicians' livelihoods.  For god's sake, help people.

    Parent

    Were you an only child? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    Because you sure seem to believe in the take-no-risk/don't-make-a-fool-of-yourself/I-won't-play-unless-I'm-good-at-it school of thought.

    Parent
    sj (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    I am an anonymous person on the internet whose beliefs come from a thousand different sources just like everyone else on the internet.

    Which is why it is silly to psychoanalyze anonymous people on the internet.

    Parent

    what psychoanalysis? (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:32:41 PM EST
    It doesn't take psychoanalysis to see that you are shockingly risk-averse.  Frankly, by nature I could have been that way myself.

    Now I'm even more grateful for my brothers.  Survival demanded that I put myself out there.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#105)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    "disagree".

    With what?

    Parent

    A few things (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    .

    1. Lowering the cost of energy will stimulate the economy.  Opening up more federal land to oil, gas, and coal production will create good paying productive jobs right now, and make the US a better place to invest in new plant right now.

    2. Stop the EPA from shutting coal power plants until the economy improves.  Higher electric bills take money out of consumers pockets, and makes investment offshore more attractive.

    3. Change to a territorial taxation system like just about all of the rest of the industrial world.  This will bring in a flood of foreign earnings for investment at home.   Current tax policy incentivizes investment abroad and foreign rather than domestic ownership of multinationals

    .

    Parent
    Sounds like you've been ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    buttonholed by some coal industry lobbyists.

    Or has another TLer gone from unpaid shill to paid shill?

    Parent

    Neither (none / 0) (#67)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:08:34 PM EST
    .

    But low cost energy is stimulative to the economy.  Obama should GO BIG on this, and the House would go along.

    .

    Parent

    AGW (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    Putting money into alternative energy production and green technology would also be stimulative.


    Parent
    Replacing (none / 0) (#130)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    Replacing low cost and reliable energy with high cost and unreliable energy is not stimulative.

    Parent
    Shutting coal power plants (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Madeline on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:18:59 PM EST
    increasing the need for coal,then regulations go. Miners without regulation and cities and towns covered in coal dust.  Mountain top mining (see West Virginia where the mountains have been table topped).

    Per your suggestion, I can't wait to see Yosemite, at least part of it, filled with oil wells and fracking equipment.  That is after, millionaires buy the prime scenic land for mountain retreats.

    I can compromise on looking for and exploring and even drilling for some alternate sources of energy. However, regulate them. And no private bidders.

    Not to worry.  Obama will do all that you suggest.
    Unless some miracle happens and he is primaried by some brave Democrat.

    Personally, I think it doesn't matter what Obama says. Few will believe him due to his awful track record. I believe he will be defeated in 2012. I hope he is defeated in 2012

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#68)
    by TJBuff on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    Bupkiss passes the House.  Obama won't even get the unemployment extension unless he whacks entitlements.

    Parent
    As may well be his plan. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    The proposal should be for "schools," (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    rather than for "school uniforms."    But that idea would require that our economic problems were seen by the president more as joblessness than as deficits. Moreover, the criticisms of socialist and spender would need to be taken head-on with heartfelt rebuttals and bold leadership--a prospect as unlikely as Republican agreement.

    Hence, a proposal comes our way whose foundations rest on a continuation of the payroll tax holiday for employees and a new exemption of same for employers.  As for the employee side, the additional take-home is likely to be spent and provide stimulus (note: social security recipient checks are also a monthly stimulus to the economy for the same reason).  However, payroll tax holidays only help those on a payroll, and we have not yet seen evaluations of the impact on job creation.

    Employers' payroll tax exemptions, if crafted well, should, at least,  apply only to those employers who demonstrate new hires, curtail outsourcing, increase  work hours, or raise wages.  Employers who refuse to bring overseas profits home to avoid taxation should not be a part of the program.

    These payroll reductions, given our dire straits, are worth a try, as trying as may be.  But, it would be well to note that the jobless efforts are but prologue to the main event: fierce advocacy for Cat Food II with cuts above $1.2 trillion and cuts about social programs.

    There he goes again . . . (none / 0) (#101)
    by Trickster on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    Starting with a centrist position, as if the Republicans are going to agree.  He still seems to think they are his friends, and if he does something nice for them, they will do something nice for him.

    So here we go again, with an opening position that incorporates a bunch of Republican demands.  They'll just accept those without even saying "thank you" and start screaming about what you haven't already given them.

    Say the Democratic ideal is 0 and the Republican ideal is 10.  Obama thinks 5 is a fair compromise, so he proposes 5.  Then he begins to negotiate with Republicans.  The final deal is in the 8.5-9 range.  The Republicans then start bitching about the 1-1.5 they didn't get.  Obama's poll numbers aren't as good as he likes, so he decides he needs to cut another deal.  So he proposes another 5 on some other policy, etc., etc., etc.

    If he provides a 10 (none / 0) (#116)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    They will use it to further de-power him and cast him as insane.  And given that a large portion of the populace believes he is a socialist out to destroy the country, that's a pretty good strategy.

    I believe that fear/concern, and not his conservative heart, are what drives his negotiating strategy.

    You have to step back and remember that the POTUS is a black guy named Hussein whose father wasn't a citizen that they accused of not being born in this country, people.

    I think that factor (his need to represent everyone) is the biggest thing driving Obama towards the center.  Could be wrong, but I don't think I am.  Doesn't make me like his strategy, but it does give a certain perspective on why he's using it.

    This isn't the President to champion the agenda of the left without and never was.  

    Then again, I don't think anyone could win and be POTUS doing that anyway, unfortunately.  

    Parent

    No one can "de-power" him (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    but himself.

    Parent
    You keep (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    telling us that we need to keep the crazies at bay but here you are telling us that same said crazies deserve to have Obama doing their bidding.

    The problem is that the "center" is a flexible thing. Obama has moved the "center" into Reagan territory.

    Parent

    If being a "black guy ... (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    ... named Hussein whose father wasn't a citizen that they accused of not being born in this country" was going to be such a handicap - if it was going to drive his "negotiating strategy" by making him afraid of being cast as a "socialist out to destroy the country" (as any Democrat would have been accused), then he should never have run for POTUS in the first place.

    At the very least, he could have spared us all the "Hope", "Change", and "Yes We Can!"  bu//$hit.

    Parent

    It cannot have been a surprise that the (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    crazies on the Right would attack Obama and attack him viciously. It cannot have been a surprise that the nicest thing the Right would accuse him of would be socialism. It cannot have been a surprise that the Republicans in Congress would refuse to negotiate in good faith, that they would throw roadblock after roadblock in his way. It cannot have been a surprise that today's GOP is pretty much insane.

    Given that none of what is happening with the GOP is a surprise, if Obama was not up to fighting all that, why the hell did he run for president? If he was not willing to face them down, take the insults and the hatred, and do this frikken' job, why did he run for president?

    The GOP and the insane Right was always going to go for the jugular of a Democratic president. They were always going to say and do the ugliest things imaginable. They have no shame. And everyone knew this. So, if Obama was not willing to engage in them in the fight we all knew would be necessary, why the hell did he run?

    Enough with the whining about how mean the Right is. Kick the SOBs in the nuts and do the job the American people elected him to do.

    Parent

    you don't understand, casey (none / 0) (#128)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    do the job the American people elected him to do

    the American people elected Obama to prenegotiate with the GOP, extend the Bush tax cuts, extend the Bush policies on extraordinary rendition, & "strengthen" the "entitlements"

    i know that's what i wanted

    Parent

    Bravo (none / 0) (#136)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    Comment of the day Casey.

    Parent
    The Republican base (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Madeline on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:36:11 PM EST
    are the only ones who believe him to be a socialist.   Even Independents and moderates, who he truly believes will save him, have decreased in support when polled.

    It's not his desire to please.  It's his stubborn pride and personal belief that he is invulnerable. What other person would make the absurd choices that he is making; would be the abused suitor to the Republican Congress? Seriously, he's embarrassing.  

    What he needs is to be told that he is tearing the country apart and needs to give up the Presidency to save the Presidency.

    Parent

    To quote John McEnroe... (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years.

    HE CANNOT BE SERIOUS.

    Too Little (none / 0) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    too late.