Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

McCotter is actually a cool guy, I've seen him speak a couple times. He supported the bailout, has bucked the party at times, and is quite witty. It's probably too late for him to make any impact in the more moderate, heavy union states like Wisconsin or Ohio though. Plus he has no money.

I'm guessing this run is just an attempt to get his name out there, sell some books, and set himself up for 2016 or beyond; he's only in his mid 40s

 

[leroy hacker]

Why can't Republicans agree to tax increases

Grover Norquist.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Why can't Republicans agree to tax increases on the top 2% and Democrats agree to budget cuts?

Democrats have agreed to budget cuts.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Can you point to a specific piece of legislation they are proposing that is intended to 'tank' the economy? Which I assume means to send it back into a recession (which would be difficult to prove since we are trending that way anyways).

Look around at what is happening in other countries which have enacted austerity policies. Why will the results be different here?

And look at what the GOP is fighting for. Cuts to infrastructure, to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security - the poor and vulnerable - to education, to research and investment. While fighting to protect tax cuts for the super wealthy and for certain corporate interests. Cutting areas with a large economic multiplier, in favor of things that have almost none.

Obama has conceded much of this, while also arguing that some measures must be included to offset the impact. He proposed something the Republicans have been arguing for: an employer side payroll tax cut. This is literally the GOP's idea, something they've been demanding for a while. They have rejected it out of hand.

On trade agreements, the GOP have agreed entirely to the trade packages with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. So what happens when it's brought to committee?

"Senate Republicans on Thursday boycotted a hearing on three pending free-trade agreements, delaying action on a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s effort to boost U.S. exports. Republicans object to a worker assistance program the administration wants to include as part of a free-trade agreement with South Korea. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program costs about $1 billion and has drawn bipartisan support in the past. But in the charged environment over spending and debt negotiations, the dispute is complicating what the administration had hoped would be an easy push to broaden trade with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called a meeting of his panel at the Capitol at 3 p.m. Thursday, but the 11 Republicans on the committee failed to show up."​

They walked out of the room (or rather, refused to walk into it) because of a small measure to aid displaced workers.

Spot the pattern?

Now let's flip the conversation around. The GOP ran on a platform of jobs last cycle. What are their proposals to create jobs right now? Be specific.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Now let's flip the conversation around. The GOP ran on a platform of jobs last cycle. What are their proposals to create jobs right now? Be specific.

Wasn't there an article somewhere that suggested having more Republicans in Congress and one in the White House might actually make businesses spend more of their cash hoards and hire more workers?

'Cause I'm pretty sure that's what Republicans are thinking. Uncertainty, I believe they call it.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama has conceded much of this, while also arguing that some measures must be included to offset the impact. He proposed something the Republicans have been arguing for: an employer side payroll tax cut.

Speaking of Obama and Republicans, Krugman on Obama:

Barack Herbert Hoover Obama

From [yesterday’s] radio address:

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.​

Yep, the false government-family equivalence, the myth of expansionary austerity, and the confidence fairy, all in just two sentences.

Read this and this to see why he’s wrong. This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies.​

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/barack-herbert-hoover-obama/

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Speaking of Obama and Republicans, Krugman on Obama:

Barack Herbert Hoover Obama

From [yesterday’s] radio address:

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.​

Yep, the false government-family equivalence, the myth of expansionary austerity, and the confidence fairy, all in just two sentences.

Read this and this to see why he’s wrong. This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies.​

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/barack-herbert-hoover-obama/

That's just political talking points. At the same time the American Public is freaked out about the debt.

This great progressive hope that Krugman is now dissapointed with did preside over some big progressive accomplishments. People keep forgetting that.

 

[Chichikov]

Grover Norquist.

I've long maintained that any idiot that sign his pledge is unfit to govern, by definition.
And this is not about big government vs. small government, it's fine to hold a conservative or libertarian positions and a view of low taxation and limited services.

It's about the claim that all and every increase in the marginal tax or removal of a deduction is bad, regardless of the situation.

It's bad even if those deductions don't make sense.
It's bad even if you just got into a world war against the super nazis and you need to finance it.
It's bad even if the last election, the father (Paul), son (Paul) and the holy ghost (of Ayn Rand) got the marginal tax rate to zero point zero percent.
It's bad even if you can't make payroll to the military.

It doesn't matter, Norquit's pledge says that the tax rate that we have in any given moment is the maximum rate allowed, anything more, and the ghost of Ronald Reagan will come to punch the communism out of you.
And you know he's right because his father was really really rich.

Again, tax rate is not a policy.
It's how you pay for your policy.

That's just political talking points.

What makes you think that?

This great progressive hope that Krugman is now dissapointed with did preside over some big progressive accomplishments. People keep forgetting that.

So because Obama signed some law he likes and started some good initiatives he's now immune from criticism?
Stop treating politicians like a sport team you root for, and start treating them like what they are, people who works for you.

I'm unhappy with Barry's performance recently, and we're going to have a talk about that.
I'll bring my signs and megaphone.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That's just political talking points. At the same time the American Public is freaked out about the debt.

This great progressive hope that Krugman is now dissapointed with did preside over some big progressive accomplishments. People keep forgetting that.

What makes you believe they're just talking points - Obama always frames the issue like that. Just a couple days ago he also said "everything" needs to be on the table for cuts, which presumably includes Medicare cuts.

I have a feeling he'll get a small employer payroll tax cut and some weak concession in exchange for a trillion in cuts.

 

[GhaleonEB]

That's just political talking points. At the same time the American Public is freaked out about the debt.

People are freaked out over jobs, not debt.

And Krugman was making a policy, not political, point.

 

[Measley]

So because Obama signed some law he likes and started some good initiatives he's now immune from criticism?
Stop treating politicians like a sport team you root for, and start treating them like what they are, people who works for you.

There's a difference between criticizing the president, and comparing him to Herbert Hoover, or pretending that he's completely failed the progressive agenda.

Last I checked, democrats got destroyed in 2010, and the congress got filled with far-right leaning conservatives. How should Obama interpret that? As a sign to go more to the right, or as a sign to go more to the left?

 

[Chichikov]

There's a difference between criticizing the president, and comparing him to Herbert Hoover, or pretending that he's completely failed the progressive agenda.

So this is all about the fact that Krugman used a little sensationalism in his headline to draw attention?
This is par for the punditry course.

I think it's more productive to focus on what he said, not on how he tried to get people to read it.
And I think what he said was spot on.

Last I checked, democrats got destroyed in 2010, and the congress got filled with far-right leaning conservatives.

So you're happy with Obama's job performance?
You don't think he could have done a much better job?
Because I do.

How should Obama interpret that? As a sign to go more to the right, or as a sign to go more to the left?

That's not how democracy work.
Obama was elected to a 4 years presidency.
Yes, he need to be realistic about what is achievable in congress, but he's not suppose to change his own personal positions, that would betray the people who voted for him.

 

[empty vessel]

There's a difference between criticizing the president, and comparing him to Herbert Hoover, or pretending that he's completely failed the progressive agenda.

Last I checked, democrats got destroyed in 2010, and the congress got filled with far-right leaning conservatives. How should Obama interpret that? As a sign to go more to the right, or as a sign to go more to the left?

What do I care about how Obama interprets anything? I only care about what I want and what I think is best for this country. And any politician who is not doing those things is going to be criticized for it. I'm not a cheerleader, I'm a judge. Even taking into account the political context, however, Republicans do not have any real leverage right now. It is entirely illusory, because they will not actually fail to raise the debt limit. Obama genuinely favors austerity measures and is genuinely comparable to Herbert Hoover.

(As an aside, mid-term elections, because turn out is so low, are not indications of anything.)

 

[Measley]

So this is all about the fact that Krugman used a little sensationalism in his headline to draw attention?
This is par for the punditry course.

Sensationalism that eventually makes left-leaning voters want to stay home because they feel that Obama has failed "the cause".

I think it's more productive to focus on what he said, not on how he tried to get people to read it.
And I think what he said was spot on.

I agree with Krugman's general argument, I disagree with using such a title, because its the same title conservatives have used against Obama since he entered office.

So you're happy with Obama's job performance?
You don't think he could have done a much better job?

He could always do a better job. However, I also think he's done a pretty good job so far. Is he the progressive president that I hoped he would be? Nope. However, compared to the direction we were going under Bush, or we would be going under McCain, I'm satisfied for now.

That's not how democracy work.

Democracy favors those who actually vote. The people who voted overwhelmingly voted in conservatives in 2010. So now Obama is playing it like Clinton, and its working. Unfortunately, the left seems to forget about past accomplishments and nit-pick to the point of nonsense.

 

[Measley]

What do I care about how Obama interprets anything? I only care about what I want and what I think is best for this country. And any politician who is not doing those things is going to be criticized for it. I'm not a cheerleader, I'm a judge. Even taking into account the political context, however, Republicans do not have any real leverage right now. It is entirely illusory, because they will not actually fail to raise the debt limit. Obama genuinely favors austerity measures and is genuinely comparable to Herbert Hoover.

(As an aside, mid-term elections, because turn out is so low, are not indications of anything.)

Again, I said there's no problem in criticizing the president. However, comparing him to Hoover, or saying that he's given up on the progressive cause is nonsense and self-defeating.

As for the mid-terms, if the turn out is so low, then it should be easy to get progressives off their asses and actually vote in them. The real change happens in the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

 

[Chichikov]

Sensationalism that eventually makes left-leaning voters want to stay home because they feel that Obama has failed "the cause".

I think that pinning lower enthusiasm among liberals on people like Krugman is beyond silly.
It's Obama's job to energize the base, and he can do it quite easily even now, do I need to give you a list of thing that will get every liberal excited?

He could always do a better job. However, I also think he's done a pretty good job so far. Is he the progressive president that I hoped he would be? Nope. However, compared to the direction we were going under Bush, or we would be going under McCain, I'm satisfied for now.

I'm not grading his presidency.
I'm voicing my opinion on things he does.

And I refuse to set the presidential bar at "well, at least he's better that dubya".
He's the leader of the free world for fuck's sake, it's okay to demand a lot from him.
No wait, it's required to demand a lot with him.
Grading is for historians.

Democracy favors those who actually vote. The people who voted overwhelmingly voted in conservatives in 2010. So now Obama is playing it like Clinton, and its working. Unfortunately, the left seems to forget about past accomplishments and nit-pick to the point of nonsense.

I think you and I has very different definitions of what constitutes playing it like Clinton.
Also, you may recall that the GOP had the senate back then as well.

And it's true that he needs to make policy comprises, but he need not make compromises about his fucking economical world view, which I think is the point Krugman is trying to make.

 

[empty vessel]

Again, I said there's no problem in criticizing the president. However, comparing him to Hoover, or saying that he's given up on the progressive cause is nonsense and self-defeating.

I genuinely don't understand why you think Obama is not comparable to Hoover. Both were advocates of austerity in difficult economic times. And saying that he has given up on the progressive cause is an opinion that one might have. I don't understand what is self-defeating about it at all. What is self-defeating is saying nothing while the president openly announces that he intends to hurt me and other Americans.

The goal of politics is not to have our favorite people on a personal or even political level in office. It is policy. I sometimes wonder if this penchant for putting politicians before policy is uniquely American or if it is ubiquitous. Consider what you are asking when you say something like "Sensationalism that eventually makes left-leaning voters want to stay home because they feel that Obama has failed 'the cause.'" You are asking people to give up advocating for a specific policy--and an incredibly important one at that that is likely to harm most all Americans--now so that they can get a specific person elected later. It's madness; it's exactly the opposite of what your priorities should be. My goal is not to have Obama in the White House. My goal is to have the American government not enact austerity measures that will hurt working people.

(Note that Krugman did not, however, say that Obama had "given up on the progressive cause." He said that Obama--the great progressive hope--"is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies." And he is. People who are disillusioned with Obama may well believe he has given it up--I don't think he ever was progressive--but, frankly, even people who believe in him now should be criticizing him, for his own sake. Whether due to foolishness or a genuine belief in austerity (and I believe the latter), Obama is digging his own grave, and those who do support him had better start yelling at him to stop saying and doing stupid shit.)

 

[Chichikov]

I sometimes wonder if this penchant for putting politicians before policy is uniquely American or if it is ubiquitous.

I cannot speak for the entire world, but it is more certainly not an exclusive American phenomenon.

 

[besada]

I'm not grading his presidency.
I'm voicing my opinion on things he does.

And I refuse to set the presidential bar at "well, at least he's better that dubya".
He's the leader of the free world for fuck's sake, it's okay to demand a lot from him.
No wait, it's required to demand a lot with him.
Grading is for historians.

This, this, and three more piles of this.

People who are disillusioned with Obama may well believe he has given it up--I don't think he ever was progressive--but, frankly, even people who believe in him now should be criticizing him, for his own sake.

And a dash of this.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You still have to grade him on his performance compared to other Presidents. That's what we do.

If you are being fair-minded, he is clearly better than any president we have had since Reagan and (depending on your policy inclinations) you might even go as far back as LBJ.

He has brought honor back the the role of Presidency (thus far), he has not overreacted to some severe economic turmoil and he has come through on most of his campaign promises. So, if you are a simpleton who merely judges Presidents based upon the economy they happen to preside over, you may call him a failure. But, if you are someone that understand how the world works, you would think otherwise.

Whatever misgivings you may have about some of his decisions, usually they are decisions that are just continuing the policies of previous administrations and a slight attempt to gradually steer it back in a different direction. This is someone that realizes that the government is a lumbering beast and if you attempt to make some huge, widescale change in course .. it is going to throw you off the saddle and make you irrelevant.

 

[Chichikov]

You still have to grade him on his performance compared to other Presidents. That's what we do.

Why?

If you are being fair-minded, he is clearly better than any president we have had since Reagan and (depending on your policy inclinations) you might even go as far back as LBJ.

Even if what you're saying is true (and I find it kinda silly to grade presidents on a single scale), why should it matter to everything?
If I love the new deal I can't criticize FDR for the internment camps?

Whatever misgivings you may have about some of his decisions, usually they are decisions that are just continuing the policies of previous administrations and a slight attempt to gradually steer it back in a different direction. This is someone that realizes that the government is a lumbering beast and if you attempt to make some huge, widescale change in course .. it is going to throw you off the saddle and make you irrelevant.

Whatever misgiving I have about his decisions I will voice.
It is my duty as a citizen in a democracy.

 

[Averon]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/03/bachmann.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_p1

Bachmann: I'll help Obama find a job after I win

On Saturday, the Minnesota congresswoman took fresh jabs at the president. In one instance, Bachmann said she hoped to oust him from his current employment, become president herself -- and then help Obama find a job. Bachmann also blasted "Obamacare," saying it would cost American jobs and questioning if Obama "was in his right mind" for championing it.

I must admit I chuckled when I read that headline.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why?

Because it's called 'putting things into context'. Its how you should evaluate everything in life. No single event should put you off to someone nor should it be the sole determiner of your voting preference.

Even if what you're saying is true (and I find it kinda silly to grade presidents on a single scale), why should it matter to everything?
If I love the new deal I can't criticize FDR for the internment camps?

Whatever misgiving I have about his decisions I will voice.
It is my duty as a citizen in a democracy.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give it voice, but how often do you see people say "I can't believe I voted for Obama" or "I won't vote for this man again" in thread after thread?

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/03/bachmann.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_p1

Bachmann: I'll help Obama find a job after I win



I must admit I chuckled when I read that headline.

Okay, as much as I can't stand her, that was a pretty ballsy line. I lol'd

 

[Chichikov]

Because it's called 'putting things into context'. Its how you should evaluate everything in life. No single event should put you off to someone nor should it be the sole determiner of your voting preference.

But you're not talking about things, you're talking about the president.
We're discussing policy here, why is it important to put the presidency into context?

Also, I think those type of activities are best left for some time in the future, you know, when we can have some perspective.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give it voice, but how often do you see people say "I can't believe I voted for Obama" or "I won't vote for this man again" in thread after thread?

Any person who makes such categorical proclamations without even knowing who would be on the ticket is an idiot.
But no one here did it vis a vis that Krugman post, right?

Okay, as much as I can't stand her, that was a pretty ballsy line. I lol'd

I have zero problem with it.
The insinuation that he might've been not of a sound mind, not so much.
And just so we're clear, even that is not a huge deal for me, and I'm sure politicians that I really like said much worse, so no need to start your google engines.
I just think that ideally you want to try and avoid fanning the crazy flames, if you can.

 

[Snake]

Call me when these horrible gigantic Hooveresque cuts come, and I'll concede that something bad has happened. Don't expect everyone to get on the "Obama is a sellout" bandwagon when all we have are words, and the same words we've heard for years that didn't lead to cuts. I've also been hearing another type of words, that Obama is nothing but a corporate plant/sellout, and I've been hearing these words for over two years now, at every point of legislative debate:

"The end of our entitlement programs is just around the corner!"
"Obama represents the final victory of big business against the working man!"
"Even Bush couldn't win on Social Security privatization, but Obama will do it and the foolish American Left will cheer for him as he does it!"
"The final sellout of the American Dream is taking place, and there will never be a new dawn for our country."

I keep waiting for the end of Social Security. Really, I am sitting here waiting for anything to happen. Every single news article where President Obama or Harry Reid or pre-2010 Pelosi said something to the effect of "we are looking at all options," the freakout segment of the left responds by saying our entitlements are surely doomed. Doomed, I say.

And if you think a large electoral victory for the Democrats in 2012 won't lead to far more spending than whatever hypothetical cuts take place in near term legislation, then you don't know the Democratic Party and you don't know Barack Obama. Just because Republicans are often delusional about debt and spending doesn't mean Obama hasn't spent plenty (and that's a good thing). Do I really have to detail what the 111th Congress did? Do I have to post pictures that show they did it with far smaller majorities than LBJ had when he enacted Medicare and the Great Society, or FDR and the New Deal (Not to mention with far fewer moderare Republicans on the other side)?

You say those of us who aren't calling for Obama's head are gleefully accepting conservative dominance of the debate. I say you're gleefully accepting conservative dominance of Congress. It's not people like me who say things like "Fuck, I might as well just vote Republican now to speed up our descent into destruction!" And yet I hear this attitude daily from people who claim to be the "true progressives."

All I hear is "Obama is Hoover," "Obama is Carter," "Obama is Bush." The fact that I think those are idiotic arguments doesn't mean that I have no criticism for Obama. It just means I give his existence its own subjectivity. Obama is Obama, nothing more nothing less.

edit: Just to be clear, I am not trying to attack anyone here personally. I am speaking about widespread trends that I see on a daily basis.

 

[Chichikov]

So you're happy he extended the tax cuts for the rich?
Do you think that cutting Pell Grant is good policy?

I think you're shadowboxing here a bit.
Some people make idiotic arguments, that is true, but did anyone do it in this particular discussion?

And if you read that Krugman post as "Obama is Hoover", than I think you were reading it wrong.

 

[thekad]

When did he cut Pell Grants?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What makes you think that?

Because he said the same things when running for President.

So because Obama signed some law he likes and started some good initiatives he's now immune from criticism?
Stop treating politicians like a sport team you root for, and start treating them like what they are, people who works for you.

I'm unhappy with Barry's performance recently, and we're going to have a talk about that.
I'll bring my signs and megaphone.

No, he is not immune from criticism, but people behave as if he hasn't done anything progressive during his term. Let me know how he is now supposed to get anything done with the current Congress. It is when people make it seem like Obama hasn't done anything progressive at all (which Krugman does from time to time) it gets annoying.

People are freaked out over jobs, not debt.

And Krugman was making a policy, not political, point.

People are freaked out over both. Problem is a lot of people believe that debt and jobs are related. And Krugman makes both political and policy points when he talks about Obama being a lost progressive hope without acknowledging his progressive accomplishments.

It is not Obama's fault that the 2010 bloodbath of Democrats happened (American Public bought them all this). Let us remember it happened after one of the best Progressive sessions of Congress. Even after that, the budget cut deal Obama negotiated with Republicans was pretty good for Democrats (read up Ezra Klein) even with the Republican majority in the house.

Here is the truth:
1. Medicare cuts have not been a part of any deal
2. SS cuts have not been a part of any deal

Obama makes a simple statement that government must perform within its means (what is wrong with that?). He has also made the argument that we must increase these means by raising taxes and eliminating loopholes.

I bet Krugram must have loved that, but he chooses to focus on one sentence out of everything Obama has said this last week. Krugman is acting like a classic beltway Pundit.

So you're happy he extended the tax cuts for the rich?
Do you think that cutting Pell Grant is good policy?

He DID NOT want to extend the tax cuts. America elected Republicans en masse last elections. Obama was held hostage to that. His options were:
1. Let ALL tax cuts expire along with unemployment benefits
2. Agree to extend tax cuts for 2 years, fight it during the 2012 elections and have Republicans agree to an extension of unemployment benefits

Option 1, if he had chosen that, would have hurt the people who are hurting the most anyway.

The Pell Grant Cuts are ONLY for Summer classes. Don't forget the Pell Grant increases that happened during Obama's tenure...

And his proposal counters the Republican proposal for Pell Grants that has much worse cuts.

 

[Snake]

So you're happy he extended the tax cuts for the rich?
Do you think that cutting Pell Grant is good policy?

The extension of tax cuts for the rich [specifically these ones] do not personally bother me in the least so far as they do not lead to cuts in other positive spending (Whether, and to what extent, that is taking place is the nature of our current debate). I would have been happy had they been left to expire, but I found that impossible to imagine after the 2010 elections (I found it hard to imagine prior as well, considering the number of new democratic congresspersons elected from rich districts/constituencies in 2008).

And obviously I do not think cuts to Pell grants is good policy. I was glad that Obama and Congress expanded them several times since 2009. I cannot speak to how disappointed I am in cuts until I did a comparison of how much has been gained versus what might be lost.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Tax cuts for the rich do not personally bother me in the least so far as they do not lead to cuts in other positive spending (Whether that is taking place is the nature of our current debate). I would have been happy had they been left to expire, but I found that impossible to imagine after the 2010 elections (I found it hard to imagine prior as well, considering the number of new democratic congresspersons elected from rich districts/constituencies in 2008).

And obviously I do not think cuts to Pell grants is good policy. I was glad that Obama and Congress expanded them several times since 2009. I cannot speak to how disappointed I am in cuts until I did a comparison of how much has been gained versus what might be lost.

Derp?

 

[empty vessel]

Hokuten,

Are you saying that people who oppose spending cuts--or, more accurately in my case, people who support spending increases--and who think that any spending cuts will be harmful for the country should not say anything when the president comes out explicitly in favor of spending cuts? What do I--a person who seeks spending increases--have to gain by keeping quiet? It would seem I have nothing to gain by keeping quiet, but people who endorse spending cuts do have something to gain by suggesting I and others keep quiet, namely: the policy you want.

You seem to be lamenting people who are expressing fears of "horrible gigantic Hooveresque cuts" being made "when all we have are words." First, nobody here has done that. The Hoover comparison has nothing to do with the size of anticipated cuts and everything to do with the president's adoption of, in Krugman's words, "right-wing economic fallacies."

Second, words do matter. All the more so when they are coming from the president's mouth. I will not shy away from criticizing a president who openly advocates right-wing economic frames and policy that is harmful to Americans right now in order to avoid some future threat of greater injury by Republicans who are currently seeking the same end as the president (that being reductions in spending, a policy diametrically opposite to the one I support).

Moreover, it is affirmatively detrimental to any left cause in and of itself to have right wing economic frames reiterated and reinforced by any president, but especially by one associated in the mainstream conscious with "liberal" and "progressive." If even this great progressive, tax-and-spend president believes spending cuts are necessary, they really must be! It has the effect of completely removing from the boundaries of mainstream debate and discussion the prospect of increasing spending. Regardless of the political necessities and whatever compromise that might eventually require, it does not require the president to freely and openly endorse austerity and other right wing nonsense. He can learn to keep his mouth shut if that's what is going to come out of it.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Hokuten,

Are you saying that people who oppose spending cuts--or, more accurately in my case, people who support spending increases--and who think that any spending cuts will be harmful for the country should not say anything when the president comes out explicitly in favor of spending cuts? What do I--a person who seeks spending increases--have to gain by keeping quiet? It would seem I have nothing to gain by keeping quiet, but people who endorse spending cuts do have something to gain by suggesting I and others keep quiet, namely: the policy you want.

You seem to be lamenting people who are expressing fears of "horrible gigantic Hooveresque cuts" being made "when all we have are words." First, nobody here has done that. The Hoover comparison has nothing to do with the size of anticipated cuts and everything to do with the president's adoption of, in Krugman's words, "right-wing economic fallacies."

Second, words do matter. All the more so when they are coming from the president's mouth. I will not shy away from criticizing a president who openly advocates right-wing economic frames and policy that is harmful to Americans right now in order to avoid some future threat of greater injury by Republicans who are currently seeking the same end as the president (that being reductions in spending, a policy diametrically opposite to the one I support).

Moreover, it is affirmatively detrimental to any left cause in and of itself to have right wing economic frames reiterated and reinforced by any president, but especially by one associated in the mainstream conscious with "liberal" and "progressive." If even this great progressive, tax-and-spend president believes spending cuts are necessary, they really must be! It has the effect of completely removing from the boundaries of mainstream debate and discussion the prospect of increasing spending. Regardless of the political necessities and whatever compromise that might eventually require, it does not require the president to openly endorse austerity and other right wing nonsense. He can learn to keep his mouth shut if that's what is going to come out of it.

I think what a lot of us are saying is that criticize the President for the position, that is fine. But there is a big stretch from disagreeing with him over spending cuts/increases to saying he hasn't done anything progressive while being President.

The other point we are making is that his hands are even more tied now after the bloodbath in the 2010 elections and that Obama has always talked about Government needing to operate within its means, what he is saying is nothing new to Washington or for Obama.

Second, words do matter. All the more so when they are coming from the president's mouth. I will not shy away from criticizing a president who openly advocates right-wing economic frames and policy that is harmful to Americans right now in order to avoid some future threat of greater injury by Republicans who are currently seeking the same end as the president (that being reductions in spending, a policy diametrically opposite to the one I support).

Specifically, this is incorrect. Maybe I am the only one who read Obama's press conference last week. Obama has always specifically asked for tax increases on the Rich and elimination of tax incentives for corporations that don't need them. Republican economic policies are against both of those. Obama has always said that any medicare changes can't include shifting of cost to the seniors. Republican policy is exactly that.

There is a big step from Obama talking about Government spending money wisely/within it's means to saying he has full fledged endorsed Republican economic policy.

 

[Snake]

Hokuten,

Are you saying that people who oppose spending cuts--or, more accurately in my case, people who support spending increases--and who think that any spending cuts will be harmful for the country should not say anything when the president comes out explicitly in favor of spending cuts? What do I--a person who seeks spending increases--have to gain by keeping quiet?

You can say all you like. And for the most part, in terms of the need for increased spending, I will agree. And to the extent that anyone here or elsewhere publicly made those calls for increased spending in an effective manner, I would cheer them on. I do not recall at any time saying that you or anyone else here needs to be silent. Rather, I explained why I believe certain criticisms often made on this subject (spending) do not correspond to reality, and are therefore a detriment to our debate.

The perfect example is on display above, where the issue of pell grants was raised. Pell grants have been increased many times by Obama and Congress in the last few years (this has directly benefitted me I might add, and likely many other people here), both by ARRA and other legislation. Now, there is the talk of potential cuts from those peaks. Will I like it if those cuts take place? No. Am I perfectly satisfied with even the status quo? No. But I cannot abide the passing notion that is implied when we so often talk about issues like this: That "Obama (or the Democrats) are cutting pell grants," without recognizing what they've already done, and can do in the future (especially when the reality is that even if certain cuts are made, things could be left higher than they were before 2009).

It is this recurring principal, where so many liberals don't seem to care so much when, for example, the stimulus bill hugely increased funding for food stamps, instead often buying into Republican memes like "the stimulus bill really is just pork." When matched with the dominant liberal view that "the stimulus was too small," the issue is left as if their were no winners and nothing achieved. And then, after the opposition has won elections and there are certain cuts to food stamps (or simply the expiration of increases), Democrats are said to "not care about poor people." Actions from the near past are silenced or swept away, and the only thing offered in their stead is pessimism.

I do not dislike the idea of putting pressure on the Democrats to do better. I dislike what I see as dishonesty or ignorance in the internal intellectual debates on these issues found throughout any website, forum, or thread dominated by American liberals. The problem is not that these criticisms are "hurtful to the cause." This is the internet, and the dialogue in which we are engaging (this thread specifically) is not really going to affect anything. The majority of people in this thread are likely going to vote for Obama anyway, grudgingly or not, admittedly or not, so I am not campaigning as it were to get anyone to change their minds. Nor do I hold anyone here in comtempt for their views.

 

[Jackson50]

Well, it appears Robert Gates will prove prescient; of course, the prediction was unfortunately blatant. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq admitted we are amenable to troop extensions beyond the 2011 deadline. Surprising, no? This is in addition to the residual force of thousands of American civilian workers and private contractors. Obviously, this necessitates a new or renegotiated SOFA. And since we desire it, the Iraqis will pass it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/03/bachmann.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_p1

Bachmann: I'll help Obama find a job after I win



I must admit I chuckled when I read that headline.

Damn, I'm not going to front: that's an awesome, cold line.

 

[Oblivion]

I truly wish I was a fly on the wall inside the west wing to figure out what Obama's end game is. I really can't understand the guy. When he's negotiating, he does a fucking horrendous job, to the point that one thinks with the level of intelligence he's displayed, that it's all intentional. That he WANTS cuts in entitlements and other areas that Republicans want.

Yet, he did stay fairly adamant on his desire to pass health care, and passed the stimulus, and some other fairly progressive initiatives.

The fact that he has these contradictory world views drives me crazy.

 

[Oblivion]

Bill Kristol is AGAINST lowering the corporate tax rate?

BREAM: Well, if they have such a hard time doing things like getting the continuing resolution, getting a budget done, getting this debt ceiling done, I mean, who thinks they have the appetite for actually tackling the tax code?

EASTON: Actually, as James Baker said to me not long ago, doing that is actually -- you have gives on both sides, because Democrats get to close loopholes and Republicans get a lowering (ph) of the corporate tax rate. So it actually is -- there is a --

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: I'm the only, like, conservative Republican in the country that actually does not think lowering the corporate tax rate is really the key to America's future.

BREAM: You're the one.

KRISTOL: Corporations have trillions of dollars. If the corporate tax rate is such a burden, how come they have all this money? They're not hiring.

The tax rates on labor are much more onerous, in my view, than the tax rates on corporations. But in any case, this is a heterodox view among conservatives. But nonetheless, this is why this deal can't happen in a year.

I mean, there's a lot of debates that have to happen among Republicans. I think Michele Bachmann probably has a slightly different view of our tax future than Mitt Romney, and this isn't going to happen before November, 2012.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-kristol-hits-republicans-again-saying

Has the world gone topsy turvy?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Bill Kristol is AGAINST lowering the corporate tax rate?



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-kristol-hits-republicans-again-saying

Has the world gone topsy turvy?

What she said needs to be hammered home in every television ad, newspaper, talk show, radio, etc

 

[empty vessel]

Bill Kristol is AGAINST lowering the corporate tax rate?



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-kristol-hits-republicans-again-saying

Has the world gone topsy turvy?

The tax rates on labor aren't that onerous. This is sleight of hand. Reducing taxes on labor (if he is talking about payroll taxes) is the most direct way to starve the beast, with the beast being Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, Obama's already a strong advocate for that and has got a head start on him.

The real problem in that area is health care costs, which as they grow transfer wealth from workers to executives of and investors in for-profit corporate health care providers. That, and the fact that corporate income tax receipts have declined tremendously as a share of total government revenue.

 

[maximum360]

Bill Kristol is AGAINST lowering the corporate tax rate?



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-kristol-hits-republicans-again-saying

Has the world gone topsy turvy?

Seriously. Upside-down Land here I come.

 

[gcubed]

So what did I miss? Cains campaign is imploding?

 

[RustyNails]

It is this recurring principal, where so many liberals don't seem to care so much when, for example, the stimulus bill hugely increased funding for food stamps, instead often buying into Republican memes like "the stimulus bill really is just pork." When matched with the dominant liberal view that "the stimulus was too small," the issue is left as if their were no winners and nothing achieved. And then, after the opposition has won elections and there are certain cuts to food stamps (or simply the expiration of increases), Democrats are said to "not care about poor people." Actions from the near past are silenced or swept away, and the only thing offered in their stead is pessimism.

Maybe the food stamps were increased due to something big that happened right before the TARP? Yeah, the collapse of Economy. The biggest pie of TARP was tax cuts: $220 billion for individuals and $60 billion for corporations. Out of $780+ billion, only $105 billion was invested in infrastructure development.

Food Stamps were $20 billion. But no, nobody wants to look at $60 billion we gave out to companies from the TARP. Yet it's bloody murder when the government gives out $20 billion to the poor, needy, unemployed and downtrodden in the form of food stamps. The circus just never seems to leave town.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Maybe the food stamps were increased due to something big that happened right before the TARP? Yeah, the collapse of Economy. The biggest pie of TARP was tax cuts: $220 billion for individuals and $60 billion for corporations. Out of $780+ billion, only $105 billion was invested in infrastructure development.

Food Stamps were $20 billion. But no, nobody wants to look at $60 billion we gave out to companies from the TARP. Yet it's bloody murder when the government gives out $20 billion to the poor, needy, unemployed and downtrodden in the form of food stamps. The circus just never seems to leave town.

Might want to replace TARP with Stimulus, TARP was done under Bush. The biggest problem with Stimulus was it didn't have enough Infrastructure spending. Its always funny when Republicans oppose one of the largest tax cuts in US history.

But its always bloody murder when any help is provided to the poor and needy. Or in the case of many conservatives/tea party people the help is good as long as it benefits their families but not good if Democrats try to help others.

 

[Chichikov]

This is sleight of hand. Reducing taxes on labor (if he is talking about payroll taxes) is the most direct way to starve the beast

And that's exactly what it is.
The Bush tax cuts starved most of the beast real well, but you can't starve social security like that, and Kristol knows it.
There's very little to gain by cutting income tax further, outside leaving a future GOP president (the endgame of all this bullshit) without revenue to do anything and a pledge to Grover Norquist.

But wouldn't it be great if we had a real social security crisis?
You know, instead of this made up one that can't quite stick with the public.
Oh boy, can you imagine like a real emergency?
Then we'll have to "get real" and "make tough decisions".
And by "we" we really mean poor people.
Man, that would be sweet.

Also, it will not disprove the Laffer curve theory vision quest, it might look so to the untrained eye, but real America knows better.

Edit: people whining about food stamps again?
Seriously?
I'm not going to post the table of most stimulus for a buck (okay, I lied), someone else would by the time I press "submit" (they didn't; assholes), but for fuck's sake, can you just think about it for a minute?
Food stamps go straight back to local businesses, many of them small businesses, you know, the type people like to pretend that we care about.

If anything, this is a bailout of businesses, which also happen to feed poor people.
How the fuck can anyone be against that?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Good article from Michael Tomasky - Why the GOP Loves Debt

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/01/the-gop-party-of-debt-and-deficits.html

In Saint Paul and Columbus and Tallahassee and Madison, as in Washington D.C., we are watching something that is no longer a political party in the normal sense, but a group of cynical highwaymen perpetuating a national crisis and then exploiting that very crisis to try to destroy the public sphere.

at the highest levels, the Republican Party cares nothing about the public debt. In fact, it wants more. Americans must understand this.

Problem is, America doesn't understand this. They still think Republicans are better suited to handle the deficit.

As my friend Sid Blumenthal put it to me the other day, “The governors are the Koch brothers’ suicide bombers.” Seventy-two Fox contracts await them in a future life.

 

[tekumseh]

I'm particularly excited at the prospect of all the ensuing hilarity should the President decide to completely bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling by citing the 14th Amendment as his basis for doing so. The gnashing of teeth on the right will be so fucking loud, we'll all need earplugs...

Here is a link: Oh, no, not using the plainspeak of the Constitution...

As a bonus, if John Cornyn thinks it's "crazy" then it clearly is worth watching them twist in the wind over.

PS, John: It also shouldn't take fucking Mitch McConnell essentially inviting the President to hear directly that no tax increases can be a part of the solution. Fuck him, and fuck you, too, if that's what your side thinks. He should do it now, if for no other reason than to watch you bitches try and explain how the constitution is right but wrong in this case. Good luck with that...

 

[RustyNails]

But its always bloody murder when any help is provided to the poor and needy. Or in the case of many conservatives/tea party people the help is good as long as it benefits their families but not good if Democrats try to help others.

Thats what I meant by saying the circus never leaving town. The greatest cry and moan show on earth, free of entry, whenever aid is given to America's needy. But for some reason (I lie, there are many), it's flowers, candy and rainbows when the America's rich get the same treatment.

He should do it now, if for no other reason than to watch you bitches try and explain how the constitution is right but wrong in this case. Good luck with that...

It's pretty easy when you have talking point memos. They originate somewhere from within the bowels of Karl Rove. It could be as easy as saying "Obama abuses constitution/executive authority" to "Obama doesn't know about constitution". When those catch lines are repeated enough times, the deal is sealed.

 

[Snake]

Edit: people whining about food stamps again?
Seriously?

I'm not sure, but I think Rusty took the post that he quoted above as if I was criticizing food stamps, when I was doing the exact opposite (If so I apologize for my sentence structure). Aside from that, I don't see anyone actually criticizing food stamps.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted his response.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not sure, but I think Rusty took the post that he quoted above as if I was criticizing food stamps, when I was doing the exact opposite (If so I apologize for my sentence structure). Aside from that, I don't see anyone actually criticizing food stamps.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted his response.

Oh, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I just saw people debating the merit of food stamps, again.
It is one of my easiest buttons to press...