Skip to main content

View Diary: Are we watching a re-run of Caver-in-Chief? (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No (17+ / 0-)

    Nor was there a first run. The President has negotiated well all along and has managed to ensure that each and every deal was more favourable to us than to them, even if we didn't always realise it. I trust him now.

    •  you mean like when he sold our financial (49+ / 0-)

      futures down the river for a very short term extension in unemployment compensation? By extending the Bush tax cuts, he made our recovery that much harder, and gave the GOP tons of ammo in a future debt fight - which we now see.

      Yeah, that worked out really well.

      Or universal access to health care? Or single payer? He cut the guts out of reform before we even started. Look at reimportation of medicines. That was a major league shafting we got.

      There are many other examples where he sucked as a negotiator.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:16:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Single payer was never on the table (9+ / 0-)

        For any of the candidates because it had only about 30 votes, if that, in the Senate.  It didn't even take an expert to know that and beyond that Obama was elected with people knowing he wasn't going to push for single payer.  

        None of the leading candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) campaigned on single payer and rightfully so.  It was a complete non starter in the Senate.

        As for extending the Bush tax cuts for all incomes I remember the deal we got and it was a good one as far as I am concerned
        - The end of DADT

        - A 13-month extension of federal unemployment benefits

        - Signing the nuclear reduction arms treaty (something that used to be a top progressive goal both for getting less nukes in the world and the peace dividend it yielded

        Not to mention it allowed the President to keep his promise  that taxes on incomes below $250K wouldn't go up.  Some how many a person doesn't realize he repeated that promise as often if not more than the promise to let taxes on the wealthiest Americans go up.

        As for re-importation of medicines what he got out of that deal was Pharma not going nuclear on the Obamacare (like they did on the Clinton plan back in 1994 which helped kill it) as well as some drug discounting

        So while I don't think the President has been perfect I also don't believe he has sucked as a negotiator especially considering he was the only President able to get healthcare based despite Democrats trying since Truman.

        •  he never even tried. (14+ / 0-)

          it is one thing to say, "I don't have the support, so I won't even try." it is something else completely different, to go out there, twist arms, push, talk to the people, and use the bully pulpit.
          Have you noticed that the few times he did that, he did very, very well? but when he sits inside the Bloatway, he makes really bad negotiating moves?

          What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

          by agnostic on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:56:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one tried because it was more than obvious (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheKF1, Sophie Amrain

            It was dead in the water from the get go.  There was absolutely no way single payer was going to pass both because of who was in congress and because there are millions of Americans who are terrified to lose their employer sponsored health insurance.  

            The bully pulpit was not going to make single payer feasible  no matter how much people here think it would have.  That is why none of the Democratic candidates proposed it in their platform.  

            Just because you wanted him to push for it doesn't mean because he didn't he capitulated.  

            •  no one could have ever passed a minimum wage (11+ / 0-)

              no one could ever pass social security
              no one could ever pass the EPA
              no one could ever pass Clean Water or Clean Air
              no one could ever pass strategic arms limitations with the soviets
              no one could ever

              yeah. you are right. it is better never to try, never for reach for the unreachable, never to work hard to improve a situation, in the face of incredible odds and opposition.

              Let's just all fucking give up now, and make it easier. I hope you are never in charge of a research, health  or science program, anything that requires vision, creativity, fortitude, or concerted effort, diligently and constantly  applied - because it might be too hard. We wouldn't want you to strain yourself, would we?

              what a crock of mnsdflkjsdfm & &@W)(***) as well as (nsdfijslkdfj) mumble.

              What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

              by agnostic on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:27:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  2010 tax deal helped the recovery. (4+ / 0-)

        it got UE benefits, payroll tax cut, extension of some other stimulus programs.

        without those things, billions of dollars would have been removed, mostly from the poor and middle class, which would have hurt the economy.

        more revenue was not very important, since R's would not spend it, it would not have relieved pressure for austerity by closing the deficit (closing the deficit would be bad anyway), and debt and deficit are not important in a near-depression with negative interest rates.

        •  you're right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheKF1, Larsstephens

          no tax cut extension, no unemployment extension and no stimulus.......I recall that when Boner agreed his caucus was furious because in reality they got far less and dems far more than they thought.

          easy to second guess but facts support what O has done.

          re: current negotiations, they are just that negotiations. would not surprise me that O will suck them in again. He put the Grand Bargain out last time which the GOP was foolish to not grab....the GOP made a horrible political decision/calculation but it would not surprise me that he made that offer knowing that they would not accept it and look bad doing so...which is what happened.

          would not surprise me to find out he is doing the same thing and it sure looks like Boner is walking right in to it. the GOP will not accept the deal and on Jan 1, ta cuts will expire and sequester kick in and that is not an unacceptable situation for democrats.

          boner may believe the debt limit has O by the testicles but that is not the case. republicans won't have the balls to let government default again and even if they tried, I am convinced O will raise it under the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

          all we have heard is talk, there is no agreement and not legislation passed........I'm feeling pretty good.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:54:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those unemployment benefits (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackClouds, TheKF1, Larsstephens

        may have meant nothing to you, but several people on this board were in dire need of them. Not to mention the repeal of DADT, which pretty much started the ball rolling on Obama endorsing equal rights, refusing to defend DOMA in the courts and seeing LGBT rights making huge strides in the last 2 years.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:39:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  you do understand (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackClouds, TheKF1, Larsstephens

        that there is a provision that kicks in for '14 under the AHA that there has to be at least one non-profit option set up in the exchanges.

        maybe it's a back door method to single-payer but it's coming and it's because O made sure the provision was in there.

        In the interim both CA and VT have single payer initiatives, VT has passed theirs and is deciding how to implement and with a super majority in CA legislature there is hope for something in CA.

        There was not the political backing for single-payer initially so I believe he was smart not to push and brilliant for what he built in to the bill for the future.

        as to Bush tax cut extension, he was backed in to a corner if you got back and look in to what happened. Maybe he was  naive then and got backed in to a corner he should not have but it's also now water over the damn.

        O was never going to be an effective president and make changes history would smile upon if he did not get a 2nd term and while I was disappointed I understood O always has a long game.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:46:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  have to agree, negotiation is not his strong point (4+ / 0-)

        If I was having someone with his style negotiate my buying a used car, I would certainly wind up paying way too much, and for a car that would turn out to be a lemon.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:48:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He did not sell our futures... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming

        Although, I doubt he has any idea why.

        I have ceased to care about the Bush tax cut extension in and of itself.  I only care about it as much as it is a poor way to create jobs.

        My problem now is the entire premise that the federal deficit and debt is even a problem that our elected leaders should be worried about.   Jobs should be their only worry.  Tax cuts concern me only in that they are a piss poor way of improving the job situation.  A much better way would be to actually give people jobs.

        Let's start with the Federal government paying to (re)hiring teachers, fire fighters, and police that have been laid off by state and municipal governments because the states can't run deficits, but the Federal government can.

        The deficit needs to be bigger.  Raise taxes on the wealthy, but only if  spending on jobs is increased by a lot more.

        The premise of the entire debate is false.  The federal government can afford to buy anything in its own currency.  The debate cannot be on whether we can afford something that is in the public good.  The debate should be about what is in the public good.  And, we should be happy to have the debate about whether creating employment for everyone seeking employment is in the public good.

        •  Not exactly. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The debate cannot be on whether we can afford something that is in the public good.  The debate should be about what is in the public good.
          Both points are relevant. Claiming that we can afford all we want is magical thinking.

          He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

          by Sophie Amrain on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:26:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did not say we can afford all we want (0+ / 0-)

            The federal government can afford anything that can be purchased in its own currency aka dollars.  That is a very important difference between saying the government can afford everything we want.

            The limit is not affordability.

            The limit is should it be done.
            The limit is inflation. (related to resource constraints)
            The limit is other consequences that might be bad.

            We could decide that all the drinking fountains should have wine in them. The federal government can afford to buy all the wine for sale in dollars. Some wine might not be for sale at any price.  There might not be enough wine that can be purchased for dollars to fill all the drinking fountains.  A lot of land might start growing grapes instead of other stuff due to the increase in wine prices in anticipation of this kind of purchase going on forever.  That pushes out food growing.  Wine billionaires drive up prices of everything else.  So, just because the government can afford something does not mean we can get anything we want (some drinking fountains went without wine), nor that the consequences are acceptable.

            So, the federal government can afford anything that can be bought with dollars, but we might not get what we want because there are limitations other than "Do we have enough dollars?"  Dollars are keystrokes in a computer, dollars don't cost anything.  So, the limitation is not the first order question of do we have the dollars (aka affordability), it is the second order questions of should it be done, and what are the consequences and are they acceptable.

            That is not magical thinking that is reality.  Magical thinking is that the government is actually limited in the number of dollars it can keystroke into existence by how many dollars it keystrokes out of existence via taxes.  Magical thinking is that the government can control its deficit via austerity and somehow that will reduce the deficit (it won't) and not inflict tremendous pain on the populous (it will).  Magical thinking is that having 28 million people who want to work full time idle or working part time because the government can't afford to put them to work is OK!

    •  Explain the Payroll Tax Holiday, Mr. President (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZatCSU, NonnyO, Wendys Wink, Sunspots

      I'm all for giving more money back to the middle class.

      But the payroll tax holiday actually made Social Security less secure.  

      The last thing we want to do is reduce are income specifically for social security.  Why did Obama do that?

      Another thing, all those union members--and others--who have traditional pensions--the ones we're trying to save--didn't get a tax break from the payroll tax holiday.  

      So why was that a good idea exactly?

      The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

      by Deadicated Marxist on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:39:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jbearlaw, skohayes

      Nine rec's for this comment?  So much for the reality based community.

      'Goodwill' between the GOP and the President is as abundant as unicorn farts - Me'

      by RichM on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:11:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The President has negotiated well all along" (3+ / 0-)

      OMFG LOL ROFLMAO!  You should totally quit your day job -- You've got a bright future as a comedy writer.  

      We are the first to look up and know, with absolute certainty, that the sword we ourselves have forged, is real.

      by Jbearlaw on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:43:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sophie Amrain, emelyn

        I personally am quite happy with the largest economic stimulus program in history, the most comprehensive health reform in fifty years, the repeal of DADA, 2010 extension of unemployment benefits and new mini-stimulus and putting off austerity in 2011 - all won by the President in past negotiations.

        Obviously you feel otherwise.

    •  ROFLMAO - you can't possibly believe that. (7+ / 0-)

      You trust Obama to do what?  Not beat you as hard or as often as Boehner would?  

      Obama took a dive immediately after he was elected in 2008.  He put Goldman Sachs in charge of treasury and escalated the damned war on the credit card where all the rest of it was charged.  He turned his back on the Bush war crimes, and he didn't prosecute even one of the damned banks for perpetrating the biggest heist in history.  They destroyed the global economy, pensions, life-savings, homes, jobs and futures of millions of Americans; and they spiked the country's deficit.   Obama didn't re-regulated the banks so they ccouldn't screw us again, and he and Arne Duncan are privatizing our schools.    He is unwilling to raise taxes on the rich and corporations beyond Clinton's low rates, and he's worse on Social Security and Medicare than Reagan and Nixon.  Last but not least, he lied to the voters again and is in the process of selling them up the river again, and again, he is doing it to them right after being (re-)elected.   You'd at least expect the groom not cheat on his spouse during the freaking honeymoon.  

      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:53:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So in the 2011 debt ceiling negoatiations when... (0+ / 0-)

      the Republicans ended up with, in the Republicans' own words, 99% of what they wanted, and Obama ended up with 1% of what he wanted, was that an example of The President negotiating well all along and ensuring that each and every deal was more favorable to us than to them?

      I'd hate to see what you would think a bad deal would look like. Would it be the Republicans getting 100% of what they wanted and President Obama having to wash their cars every week?

      The term "Christian Conservative" is an even greater oxymoron than "Colosseum Lion Trainer for Christ".

      by StevenJoseph on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:11:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site