Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP will make Democrats own any entitlement cuts (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, Obama will fall into that trap (45+ / 1-)

    because he's much more concerned with his own legacy of being bipartisan and dealing with entitlements, than with the future electoral security of the Democratic Party.

    •  What about the "Boehner not negotiating with (11+ / 0-)

      the White House" bit?  If anything to raise the debt limit has to go through the usual Congressional path, doesn't in fall to Boehner and Co. to put it in writing first?

      And the CW is now "The President is refusing to negotiate on the debt ceiling"

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

      by zenbassoon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:47:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's good CW - Obama said a good thing about it (11+ / 0-)

        he needs to keep talking.

        negotiating over the debt ceiling is goofy - it calls into question the credit of the US.

        place for that negotiation is over the budget.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:53:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What does that matter? (10+ / 0-)

        That's actually bad news for the Democrats.

        Boehner is going to bring up the bills through committees and no one will see what they say until the last minute - as opposed to the public debate that gave some advantage to the Democrats.

        Anyway, Joan and kos are not entirely correct about the Medicare cuts that came along with the ACA not affecting benefits.  My family and I are receiving first-hand experience with the new "efficiency" game and while our family member's diagnosis and prognosis have not changed at all, the benefits for same are being scaled back.  I know of five other cases in the same small town in which she lives, as well.  It would not bother me so much if it were not putting the patient at unnecessary risk.  Maybe my Mom will die as a result of the reduced care and we'll all realize a financial benefit from having her off of the books.  But many others like her with fewer resources would be in a nursing home right now and we'd all be footing a larger bill - BUT the nursing homes would be profiting, so that might be groovy for the stock market right?  Just looking for that silver lining and, of course, for the efficiency savings.  

        So, happy they cut the home care program that the ACA promised. God forbid a family would be able to keep an ill elderly family member at home while footing about 90% of the costs of care and be allowed to get even a tiny bit of help from the government from the Medicare plan that that family member paid into their entire lives.  My Mother was NOT a housewife.  She earned her benefits - and she helped millions of people over the course of her career.  But never mind.  Her usefulness is over now.  She can no longer contribute - we can do without her - right?

        •  I disgree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright

          They will have a hard time getting a bill that satisfies the wingnuts but is sane enough to pass the senate. if they go through committes, Dems can report what is in these bills make the public aware.

          Why do u think they keep insisting that the prez and Dems name the cuts to SS and Medicare? Boehner forsees a situation where the prez keeps offering cuts to entitlements while he and his crazy caucus demands more. The big difference this time with the fiscal? The prez came in with a low ball offer and refused to budge until the GOP made counter offers.

          Policy wise they are bankrupt, seeing this-boehner became frustated and tried to enact plan B which failed miserably. If Dems refuse to negotiate, Reid and senate Dems pass a clean debt ceiling bill---they will be in a huge bind while the nation watches.

    •  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (10+ / 0-)

      broken record

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

      by wewantthetruth on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:55:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the Democratic politicos believe (35+ / 0-)

      that the increasing diversity of the electorate (more Hispanic- and Asian-Americans, and more younger voters voting) will ensure Democratic dominance for the next generation.

      Because the Republican party sure as hell is not going to make itself friendly to a diversifying electorate, committed as it is to an ever-shrinking base of angry WASP males, the new electorate will vote Democratic by default, or so goes the logic.

      In this way, they hope to remove economic issues from the electoral process completely (which they'd prefer to do, because that's what the 1% want). Once you can win elections without ever having to mention anything related to the economy, then they can have a bipartisan policy of austerity for the poor and corporate socialism for the rich without having to ever discuss it in public.

      The flaw in their electoral calculus is that the new Democratic voter base is not so fanatically committed to the Democratic party as the Republican base is to the GOP. If the Democratic party disappoints them, they will simply not vote. Since the Republican base will never abandon the GOP, they can beat a divided Democratic party.

      And if the Occupy movement showed anything, it's that class distinctions will trump other considerations such as ethnicity or culture. If the Republicans figure out how to co-opt the rhetoric of class before the Democrats do, they could put themselves in a winning position in the next couple of elections.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:00:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both interesting (6+ / 0-)

        and frighteningly plausible.

      •  There's a new movement "IdleNoMore" (6+ / 0-)

        http://www.commondreams.org/... that might become a Super Global movement.

        Here in America, the response to Occupy is tucked into NDAA as Washington prepares ways to suppress the symptoms of social discord. Without addressing the illness at its root nothing will change. It is like the mythical Many-Headed Hydra, if you cut one head off, two more will grow back. Popular uprisings will continue here and all over the world until leaders understand that people want real fundamental change in policy. Governments should lead by example if they want to be respected.

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:05:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, and if they insist on acting in such a (0+ / 0-)

        callous, and deleterious manner, I will enjoy watching them lose in 2014 almost as much as I enjoyed watching Mitt Romney lose in 2012.

        I have absolutely no Party loyalty whatsoever when they stop delivering what they promise.  The Dem Party can cease to exist as far as I'm concerned if they don't stand for anything and fight for it.  There are increasingly more and more people like me. So they better watch it, or they will become as irrelevant and idiotic as the GOP.

        Seeing brown people, LBGT people, and aetheists/Muslims/Hindus in office is VERY interesting and something I love to support....  but not if they vote for shit that harms me and those I love. Then they are just an old white, Christian man in a different skin or different religion.  Kinda how I always felt about Condi Rice.

        There are many reasons to enjoy, support, and admire diversity in public office, but if it doesn't net change, and greater equality/justice, etc..... it loses much of it's appeal for the voters.

        Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

        by Lucy2009 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:24:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This will be the end of Obama's legacy (14+ / 0-)

      If he compromises away the gains we've made in Social Security and Medicare, and ignores the severe damage the sequester cuts will make in many vital government programs, the Dems will never forgive him, and the Repugs will never praise him.

      He had the potential to be one of the nations greatest presidents, but his desire to make a deal at almost no concern for the long term consequences, will assure that he goes down in history as one of the most mediocre Dem presidents ever.

    •  These cuts to the safety net will never effect him (4+ / 0-)

      Or any of the millionaires that make these decisions on our behalf. Democrat and Republican millionaires will never feel the rain, cold or eat cat food. That's why they can throw granny off the cliff without talking about Pentagon cuts. Tom Brokaw said on MTP that $250k 'isn't much money'. He was talking about living in the major metropolitan cities (D.C. Baltimore, New York, Chicago, etc.), but that shows how out of touch ALL these talking heads are.

      'It isn’t fair: the caterpillar does all the work, and the butterfly gets all the glory.' - George Carlin

      by FloridaRedneck on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:37:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The president and Congress get pensions. (5+ / 0-)

        Those pensions are substantial and are funded entirely with taxpayer dollars.  So what we see now is the supreme hypocrisy of people who are currently receiving handsome, taxpayer-funded salaries and who will later receive handsome, taxpayer-funded pension payments telling ordinary citizens that even minimal taxpayer-funded retirement security is beyond our government's ability to provide.

        At the barest minimum, before the president and Congress make any cuts to Social Security benefits, they should put their own pensions on the chopping block.  Most of them are so rich they'll never need the pensions anyway.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:16:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why he would prefer that sort of legacy over (9+ / 0-)

      a more FDR-like one is quite puzzling to me.

      The man is no dummy--yet for the life of me I cannot understand why embracing a true Democratic legacy hasn't been automatic for him.

      For Democrats, it should be a no-brainer, yet here we are, actually worrying about what a Democratic president will do in this regard.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:39:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dick Durbin gave the answer to that (4+ / 0-)

        He said, referring to Wall Street: "They own the place."

        If you look at Obama's deals from the perspective of the 1%, he makes good deals.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:54:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm curious have you ever read the actual (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CrissieP, wishingwell, swampyankee

        history of FDR's presidency? Not the rose colored, 80 years after the fact revisionist one but the actual history of the man?

        Because the parallels are indeed striking. Both faced adversity, FDR his pollo and Obama racism (overt and not); both were at best disliked by the left wing of the party and both passed historic legislature that at least in FDR's case was expanded to a corner stone of the American safety net (the jury's out still on AHCA but I think it will be just as well regarded)

        And yet again people like you and slink keep complaining and then bring in utterly silly 'comparisons'

        •  Where's "I welcome their hatred" (4+ / 0-)

          comparison to FDR when speaking about Wall Street. Or any of the many many many statements of how the Bankers are crushing the average person?

          You really think that that didn't happen, that voters didn't understand that he was on their side. That Wall Street didn't see him as a threat?

          His Left opponents were the Communists and some Socialists who saw FDR as not going far enough; fundamentally saving Capitalism. Which he did. They were right about that. (It would still be under control if Democratic Centrists hadn't played a role in
          deregulating the crooks since Clinton, btw.)

          FDR went as far as trying to pack the Supreme Court so as to have his many bills to create work and relief for Americans be declared constitutional. Fought tooth and nail for that.

          You are right in that there's really no comparison of FDR with Obama.

          Soon, after it's law, we'll be talking about  the Trans-Pacific Partnership, aka "NAFTA on steroids" which the Administration is putting the finishing touches on right now. Keeping oversight of those negotiations complete opaque is one thing he has vigorously fought for. And we know how much Trade Agreements have "achieved" so far.


          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

          by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:32:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that speech gets overplayed though (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            Yes FDR was a very very populist president. Perhaps the most so of the 20th century. He also cut deals with the KKK, assisted in discrimination and 'caved' on SS by excluding farm workers from SS

            The point I am trying to make is he was a human being and he did good and he did bad. And if you want to deny the parallels go ahead but it doesn't help your crediblity.

            Further let me remind you FDR didn't live in the age we do in regards to transporation.There was no such thing as a 'global market' and while you're welcome to argue whether we're better off or not without it we can't ignore it.

            •  FDR also got 29% of black (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask, slinkerwink, Eddie L

              votes in 1932, and between 60-75% in his 3 subsequent elections. Which carried over to Truman with about 70%.

              Yes he did good and he did bad. My point is that he FOUGHT for us. You cannot say Obama fights for us more than he hopes to be a Great Reconciler.

              I understand, he cut his political teeth in the 1990s when polls showed people wanted cooperation as a top demand. But he's stuck in the mid-90s, and that's where all his advisers live. This was before it was plain that the Big Banks are criminal enterprises and an active enemy the nation and people; we had no lunatic wars going on; upward mobility was the trend rather than today's, where poverty grows by leaps and bounds. Grows, year after year, and almost nothing said about it. The Wall Streeters debt issues: Priority Number One. The People's Job Issues: minor things, certainly no CCC or WPA or anything near it. (One million new recipients of Food Stamps in Nov/Dec 2012, for instance.)

              It sure is a different time. And FDR and Obama are very different people, and have very different political aims.

              btw, I'll direct you to the history of a thriving Global Market since the 16th Century, and one which, before the crash of '29 was thriving. Even without computers and super-tankers.


              The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

              by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:04:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  fought for whom? (0+ / 0-)

                The farmer workers he ignored?
                The black soliders he ignored?
                The women he ignored?

                As I said you're looking at this though the rosey colored prism of revionist history where in FDR was this great democratic champion of the people. And there's truth there, the man also did things that weren't so great and weren't necessarily for the people.

                And the global market while it sure existed it didn't exist in the way and extent that it did since about the 70s.

                •  Who??! Apparently the people (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slinkerwink

                  who voted for him in a range of significant-to-massive majorities in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th terms. So, most of America would be who.

                  Your mistake is you think it's a matter of "Yeah FDR! Boo Obama!" and it doesn't go past that.

                  If the President comes out tomorrow with "You know what? This is not the time to worry about the debt; we've protected Wall Street plenty. Now's time for Jobs. Good paying American jobs in America. Lots of them. We're not talking about deficits any more, even if you folks in media want to. We're talking about Jobs and we need them and we need them now, and here's the plan to get them..."

                  You'll see his critics leaping for joy. Because Americans need jobs. It's the answer to most all the economic problems. It's how all those repulsive progressive goals of taking care of people and getting justice get achieved.

                  Not leaping because 'The President Is  Awesome,' but because this is an actual attempt to work politics in our interest. And if you don't know, Conventional Beltway Politics is never in our interest.

                  But he won't make Jobs a priority. Congress wouldn't pass it, sure, but they'd have to negotiate toward it. At least give reason why they don't want jobs to the Public. And if they don't pass it the Democratic Congress in 2014 will. As close to guaranteed as you can have in life.

                  No. Its not about like and dislike. It's about objective actions and objective outcomes.

                  It's about commitment to stated, and pursued, goals.

                  "I welcome their hatred" is cited not because people think it is cool (it is) but the man ran against Wall Street. Ran against Republicans. It wasn't something he said once. Keeping them from what they wanted was something he worked on day after day for years. He didn't give in by increments.


                  The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                  by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:20:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you are utterly moving the goal posts (0+ / 0-)

                    here away from my point.

                    If you can not contest that point then please just say so

                    •  I completely contested your point (0+ / 0-)

                      and in full and directly.

                      You asserted that ordinary people's love of FDR is why we use that one quote which is unrepresentative of his practice.
                      Rebutted in my last paragraph above.

                      ... that progressives are looking through rose colored glasses at FDR
                      Rebutted in previous comment, as it was policy and rhetoric we are focused on

                      ...he didn't fight fiercely for people, Implying that he didn't advance peoples situation when the voter turnout in 3 elections, including blacks and women, confirms they felt he did.

                      If you can't address the rebuttals to your own plainly stated points, ... claiming I'm moving goal posts might make it so you don't have to formally cede the points, but it doesn't change what you wrote and what I wrote in response. Anyone can read the thread.


                      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                      by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:14:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  we're going to disagree then (0+ / 0-)

                        because contesting the point had nothing to do with much of your rebuttal and in point of fact the policies of FDR especailly the ones that were not progressive is exactly what I was talking about that you are now ignoring

                        You're right anyone can read the thread and before this devolves I choose to leave it here.

                        •  FDR progressive moves: Many and (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          slinkerwink

                          constant.

                          BO progressive policies: Few and intermittent.

                          FDR rhetoric and action against our enemies in finance, and for people needing work: Strong and Unrelenting

                          BO rhetoric and action against our enemies in finance, and for people needing work: Light and Sporadic

                          I don't see how that's arguable.


                          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                          by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:49:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  Question (0+ / 0-)

      Are there not $716 billion (or more) in potential cost savings in Medicare?

      Wait till Republicans start running on protecting Obamacare.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:35:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep...Obama clearly doesn't care about 2014... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      If he did, he wouldn't have set the Democratic Party up for a massive demolition by separating taxes from the budget, debt ceiling, and Big 3 discussions. He has virtually guaranteed that the GOP will hold us hostage on the Big 3 in order to raise the debt ceiling...something that we'll get blamed for come 2014.

      •  Not just 2014 (5+ / 0-)

        It will be used by the Republicans against Democrats for elections to come for god only knows how long.  

        The real question is why the House would allow themselves to be led like sheep to slaughter.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:56:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See, that's just it...I don't believe they did... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          House leaders knew taxes on the wealthy were going up...and that their base was going to scream about it. So instead of allowing Obama's "grand bargain" to take shape, they gave him a tiny "victory" on taxes knowing that the one thing that could mitigate their "loss" - Big 3 cuts - could be negotiated separately.

          God, I feel sick to my stomach saying this, but the GOP played this one beautifully. Cheerleaders run around this site high-fiving each other as though we brought teabaggers to their knees...when, in fact, all we did was tell them we'll be bringing NO leverage to the second round of this fight. Seriously, what do they have to lose by allowing debt default, wholesale spending cuts, and "reforms"/cuts to the Big 3? When Obama signs them, HE'LL OWN THEM...whereas the GOP would have owned them in a comprehensive deal because we could tell the country they traded tax cuts for the wealthy for cuts to programs the public loves and needs.

          It's madness...I can't believe our side is this inept, but we're seeing it with our own eyes.

    •  why cant we grab a few hostages of our own? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, sunny skies, Jim P, Eddie L

      do not allow any more bills cutting taxes unless they are paid for...

      Do not approve a defense appriations bill unless we raise the debt ceiling

    •  No, intrepid progressives will stop him, just (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, wishingwell

      as they stopped him from cutting SSI and Medicare the last umpteen times you predicted he would.

      I can only stand in wonderment at your accomplishments: here he has had four years and three standoffs and you've prevented him from accomplishing his goals of cutting entitlements.   Keep up the good work.

      One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

      by Inland on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:54:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  65% and higher of the ENTIRE, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, slinkerwink, Eddie L

        that's ENTIRE political spectrum have raised a shit-storm when cuts to the safety-net are brought up. Yea, even unto the Teabaggers.

        So please stop with the bullshit about "progressives."

        I realize many here think anything that protects the interests of the people is dispensable, that the reputation of one politician matters above everything, but fortunately, the people don't.

        Did you not note that support from seniors; that percentage of voters who see Democrats as a better protector of the safety net has gone down since Obama started pushing the bipartisanshit lunacy?

        It hurts us.


        The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

        by Jim P on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:43:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What a "legacy" to shoot for! (0+ / 0-)

      Not something that would seal his name in honor for all time like seriously curbing climate change, or making a New New Deal...

      what a tool.

      Obama: self-described moderate Republican

      by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:01:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why call the President a Tool or call him names (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SethRightmer, FiredUpInCA

        as I was enjoying this debate and I do not object to even the heated debates. But I immediately get turned off by calling the President names or calling each other names, no matter what side of the argument is doing it.  Or were you calling someone else a tool?  He has not done anything yet worth calling him a tool or anything so disparaging.  Bush was a tool, but Obama, I mean really ?

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:41:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me know when his legacy building (0+ / 0-)

          includes something other than fake economic crises designed to maintain or increase the 1%'s wealth.

          And yes I stand by my use of words.  I'm not going to hold back or pass out smelling salts.

          Obama: self-described moderate Republican

          by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:15:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it isn't helpful (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell

            When you call the president names, it gives the people who admire him something to focus on besides the meat of your criticism. They will simply ignore anything else you said and turn the debate around to focus on your disrespect.

            If all you are doing is preaching to the choir, and venting, then good job. If you want to win over the undecided, not so good. If you hope to make Obama's admirers see your point, utter fail.

          •  To me and keep in mind my opinion only, I stand (0+ / 0-)

            by what I said...I find name calling a turn off and nothing personal ..but a bit immature..but that is my background speaking....

            Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

            by wishingwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:43:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  just when are you going to admit you are wrong? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      I know you said this in November and you were wrong. I know you this in December and you were wrong.

      Just how long? Till people stop reccing your comments? Till 2016? Just how much does it take?

      •  Too soon to tell, duhban (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        Neither admirers of Obama nor his critics have ANY firm ground to yell "Case closed! We won!" Not yet. We will know soon, though.

        I don't like the fact that slinkerwink chose to impugn Obama's motivations. I mean, I used to do that but I learned not to. When I really feel that something any politician did was bad for our side, I will criticize their policies, but I'm not going to ever mention what I think about their motivations.

        And I honestly don't know about this latest deal. Both sides have good points. But none of us own crystal balls. It's too soon to tell, and anyone who is making firm declarations for or against is just showing their bias at this point.

        I mean, if you want to criticize this deal, go ahead. But why make it about Obama? Why not take issue with the fact that Bernie Sanders and other core progressives supported it?

        I mean, I'm as big of a critic of some of Obama's policies as anyone here. In my opinion, he acts like a centrist. I wanted a radical. He's pretty far to the right of me on a lot of issues. But if you've been listening to him, he's never claimed to be otherwise.

        In my opinion, Obama is another Bill Clinton. Bill gave us NAFTA, and telcom deregulation. He was never really pro labor. Or pro consumer. He was pro corporation. He did alright on the environment, and props to Hilary for trying to champion universal health care. I wasn't a huge fan of Mr. Clinton back then, though of course I voted for him twice. I respect him only marginally more now. At least he apologized for NAFTA.

        Some time down the road, will Mr. Obama be apologizing for helping destroy what little social safety net we had left? Who knows.

        And that's scary.

        •  not the point seth (0+ / 0-)

          I remember right after Obama won slink just going on and on and on and on about how next Obama was going to sell out SS and medicare

          But he didn't, then it was the same story in December but again he didn't

          So to me it seems that it's less about actual reality for some people and more about old grudges and issues that have nothing to do with the facts.

          •  Well, we'll know soon enough (0+ / 0-)

            However, I should point out, I really don't know that Obama is another Bill Clinton. He might be something far more interesting.

            Being a community organizer, from Chicago, Obama must be aware of the previous success of Saul Alinsky in that city. Meaning, I'm fairly certain he has read this book. He might be another Bill Clinton, or he might be executing Saul's strategy on a grand scale.

            I don't have enough information to judge. But either way, the outcome depends on everybody getting mad as hell and then doing something about it. I mean, read the wiki page about that book. Sounds like what's happening right now, doesn't it? Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though. I really don't know yet.

            •  well true ultimately history will judge (0+ / 0-)

              but what bothers me is people not even allowing for that

              what will be, will be we will just have to face it

              •  I'm hoping everybody gets really pissed off (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban

                And we demand more, not less. I want people to get angry, to realize that the system, as it stands, is flat out broken, and we need to change it in a big way, no matter how scary that may feel for most people.

                We need more, not less. The ruling class, the dominators, the owners of this society, they have robbed us blind. But they still resent the fact that we take care of each other. That's nothing but an untapped market to them. Any little scrap we can throw to each other, to those of us who are in need, is a scrap they can't SELL.

                So they resent the fact that we take care of each other. Honestly, they believe they should have the power of life and death over us. They get to decide who eats and who doesn't eat. If you make them some money, you get to eat. That's the way they'd have it.

    •  The President is most concerned with keeping the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, poco

      fragile economic recovery going.  If you think defaulting on US debt and causing a global calamity constitutes a "legacy", then yes, he is concerned about his legacy.  For what it is worth, I believe that PBO could go to the brink on the debt ceiling game and that the Wall Street barrons will call up their slaves in Congress (both GOP AND Dem) and tell them to raise the debt ceiling and it will be raised.  But this is a very high stakes game and for what it is worth, I'm not sure I'd bet my meager savings that this scenario would work out the way I'd like it.  If you think he is more concerned about a bipartisan legacy and slashing entitlements than with having a global calamity occur on his watch, I think you are very mistaken.  I also know that few people here at DKos think that a global calamity could ever happen, but they are also wrong.

      •  So when do the threats and concessions stop? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        They can threaten the same global calamity time and again and of course they will if they get what they want every time they do it.

        •  I wish I had an answer to that question - (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, Eddie L

          it is a problem - THE problem.  It is easy for us to blog and comment about this but defaulting on US Treasury securities is very serious.  This is one of many reasons that I am not qualified nor would I want to be President - this is high stakes stuff.  Honestly, I am hoping that maybe the outreach to greedy-assed Wall Street and to the corporate masters who run the country can make the GOP pull back from the brink - but I'm sorry - I just can't lambaste the President for not wanting to take the risk of default and recession.  IMHO, this is an ugly situation.

          •  Well he's got to face them down (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CrissieP, slinkerwink, Eddie L

            He can close a bunch of military bases and stop paying defense contractors or whatever.  You can't run a country when one party can shut down the government every time they have a hissy fit.  He has to play hardball.

            •  I agree - he/we have got to try to find (0+ / 0-)

              a way forward...but I'll admit I'm scared.  Nothing he does will come without consequences - and because we now live in this "24/7, everybody is a pundit" world, it could get ugly.  Lily-livered Dems and the media will not be his friends.

      •  Agreed, I think the President is less concerned (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CrissieP, poco

        about his legacy and being bipartisan or anything else over than the economy and further economic growth and recovery.  I think that is his top priority, economic growth and jobs.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:43:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, slink, no. Not okay. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Do not call Obama's motivations into question. That is a personal attack against the president. His motivations are not something you could possibly know. Accusing him of selfish motives adds NOTHING to the conversation. If you want to criticize policies or actions, I will support you 100% but I can't support this.

      It is a dark day on DKos when I find myself disagreeing with you and agreeing with GoGoGoEverton.

    •  I don't see how that helps his legacy..... (0+ / 0-)

      He'll go down in history as the Dem President who fucked over poor old and poor disabled people. Wow...  what a legacy.

      In what world is that a legacy to be proud of???

      I seriously don't get it.

      His legacy will also show that by his complete ineptitude as a negotiator, that twice he capitulated to the GOP terrorist tactics and screwed the entire American economy as a result and lost two midterm elections for his efforst.

      Again, in what world is that a proud legacy???

      Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

      by Lucy2009 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:18:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It must be nice to be so clairvoiant (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hedwig, SallyCat

      that you know absolutely everything about what POTUS is thinking every single moment of the day. To have powers us mere mortals can only fantasize about must be really amazing!

      Economic Left/Right: -8.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons (or cats), for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

      by triciawyse on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:27:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (183)
  • Community (81)
  • Baltimore (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (57)
  • Civil Rights (47)
  • Freddie Gray (43)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Law (29)
  • Racism (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Economy (24)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Rescued (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site