Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama makes fiscal cliff statement (454 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Over the cliff (10+ / 0-)

    Wall Street leans on the GOP.

    Obama let them off the hook imo.

    •  how can you say this? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, Eric K, wader

      do you know the details of the deal?  

      Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

      by JCPOK on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:06:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How to keep them *on* the hook, please? (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans barely give a moment to think about the next election, anymore.  Despite the 2012 results, most still assume hat the machinery of the past 30 years that brought us to thids point will inevitably favor their side - so, consequences be damned.  There is no meaningful "hook" that they see.

      The minor number of breaks in their ranks aren't over how much to give back to the 99% and Democrats, but over how much more they can take away and still make a deal.  Concessions were never in their minds, and the current results show that they would have no qualms turning the unemployed destitute and further eroding our national credit rating, among other things.

      I would have not minded going over the cliff, except for the unemployed.

      How would you advise negotiating for concessions from these horrible people, please?

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:32:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read my Sunday essay (0+ / 0-)
        •  I read it and it's not far from what I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          mentioned preferring to see happen.

          Did you honestly expect this President to let things slide and not continue attempting negotiations, though?

          I feel you are still hunting for low probability actions within this comment chain.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:53:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don;t understand your comment (0+ / 0-)
            •  You seem to expect this President and Congress (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              to act against an idealized situation that you have outlined.

              That's a very nice analysis in an ivory tower setting, but I don't see it playing out in reality and feel you are not acting rationally in this minor debate.

              If Obama has no passing arm, don't blame him for not passing long in the game and act as if your analysis was the best option, as one way of putting it.  It wasn't a high probability from the start that he would willingly let the cliff come and pass, but I'd love to see that low-probability outcome occur, regardless.

              Otherwise, as I mentioned originally, my expectations are being met by the likely outline we've gleaned thus far.  However much my desires continue to be dashed.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:34:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I still don't understand your comment (0+ / 0-)

                other than your argument by assertion that my argument is not "rational."

                Are you saying Obama was not capable of carrying out my proposed strategy or that my strategy would not work?

                •  I'm saying that the probability of your (0+ / 0-)

                  strategy was not a consideration, from what I could read.

                  Analysis for "best case" is fine - we should understand what to shoot for, most times.  But, if you're going to act as if actual players on the field can't live up to your idealized situation, then you're simply living in an ivory tower and publishing a piece of interesting abstraction.

                  So, when I asked for a means of this President to deal with this Congress at this time, your essay felt an inadequate response: apparently, you did consider Obama and this Congress as likely to act as you offered, which I found rather low probability.  No, he was not capability of carrying out your proposed strategy - what in his past would make you think that was a likely outcome?  What in this Democratic Senate's past would make you think that would be a likely outcome?  How about the House Republicans, who were taking the appropriate hostages to ensure this type of deal-making would occur (again)?

                  That is, Obama is not an everyman, but a specific person: we've observed his dynamics often enough to know that he would not let the chance go by to make a deal that gives him some of what he feels is necessary, while the rightward goalposts continue to move further in that direction.

                  You offered a low-probability scenario and then blame the players for not re-learning the game to fit your armchair quarterbacking.  That's an easy play which far too many people at this site make, and it's great for acting high and mighty, with a boatload of "I told you so"s when all is said and done.

                  I find much of what you've been challenging others here in comments to be anything but reality-based, but more ego-pumping for your own purposes.  It's not helpful, IMHO.

                  "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                  by wader on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 03:16:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you are saying that because (0+ / 0-)

                    my argument (and that of many other people BTW) was not considered and should stop talking about it?

                    I think that is interesting because, to the moment, Obama's strsategy is not working.

                    No fiscal cliff deal as of yet.

                    I'm not sure why you think it is ok to insult me here, but so be it.

                    I can tell you I lost interest in your thoughts pretty quickly after that.

                    •  Ah, you lost interest after my (0+ / 0-)

                      next to last sentence, I see.

                      I don't understand what your first sentence was saying, unfortunately.  Let's review, then.

                      You're a smart, analytical person from all appearances.

                      I think you are sincerely operating within a field of thinking that supports your best-case position for what could occur here.  That's fair, much of us come from a considered position.

                      You're challenging other commenters who seem to deviate from your position, from all appearances.  Even those who have said nothing directly counter to you, at least in one instance: you lit into a commenter recently by assuming that they must be implying a point which seemed to be one of your hot-triggers, yet they said nothing of the sort.  A number of commenters had to talk you down from making that grand assumption and I never saw you admit to the possibility of their point being otherwise.  I didn't find that useful, regardless of your overall positioning on the general issue of this fiscall cliff idea.  But, it seems to be an example of how you are intently wed to the issues supporting your position.

                      Well, I already had a position that going over the cliff was best tradeoff before reading your diary referenced above.

                      But, you implied above that it was within the style of Obama to simply let that happen, or that the Senate Democrats would be able to hold Obama back from his deal-making and not vote on his inevitable attempt at last-minute compromise or that the House Republicans would make minor noise and not take whatever Obama gave them before the new Congress takes over soon . . . a number of things which I found low probability.  Yet, your criticism of Obama's negotiations was somehow based on any combination of these factors being likely, from implication of what you offered above!

                      We may still get lucky and no vote will occur after all -  kicking the can down the line by default . . . great!  I'd not mind that at all.

                      Yet, I find your argument about how he should have played things to be less of a reality-based position to take on the dynamics of the players involved - i.e., I agree with the hopeful result, not the implication he was consciously going to let that happen easily (or at all).

                      I've been hoping there will be enough incompetence to go around, such that the cliff will be hit by default - that's a different process than you seem to be implying will occur, given your criticism above.

                      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                      by wader on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:28:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site