Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama news conference #2 (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've heard his words before (10+ / 0-)

    and I will wait until he acts.

    "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

    by Sarenth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:40:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  sux! sux! suxx0rz! n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, Vote4Obamain2012
      •  Such a mature and persuasive comment. nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, 3goldens, Sarenth

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:45:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Funny thing is (12+ / 0-)

        I've heard the predictions of incompetence and closet Republicanism before. But when I wait to compare actual outcomes to the falling-sky pundits, President Obama always compares extremely well.  

        •  Nothing closet about it. (7+ / 0-)
          The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.
          link

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:49:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so what's the beef exactly? (9+ / 0-)

            he was talking about economic policies.  A moderate Republican and a centrist Democrat on economic policy aren't that far apart.  There are no more moderate Republican's in the GOP and it's no surprise that President Obama is a centrist Democrat on economic issues.  

            •  The beef is (7+ / 0-)

              that the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party of a mere twenty years ago and this president embraces that fact.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:06:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The beef is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, Matt Z

                OBAMA ALWAYS BAD.

                Yeah, boring message received.

                •  Wrong. I have frequently praised specific (4+ / 0-)

                  actions of President Obama and have every expectation of doing so again.

                  Your accusation is pure 100% horseshit.  But it is indeed an example of a "boring message" all too often delivered by a certain segment of this site's membership - no serious criticism of this president is legitimate, it can only be a symptom of a pathological hatred.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:32:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                    I read this cvlaim when you made it in a different message. The rest of that message was a laundry list of PBO's failures, as you see them.

                    I will now reproduce the list of his triumphs, as seen by you.

                    [  ]

              •  So. Then what has the Republican Party (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund

                become?  You do realize (following your sense of logic now) that the GOP of 20 years ago IS LEFT of the gang we have now?

                I mean, at some point to have any validity with me, you are going to have to acknowledge this one point.

                •  I don't see your point. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib

                  If you're suggesting that the Democratic Party must (and should) follow the Republicans in their relentless movement towards the right, then I disagree.  If not, I fail to see what relevance the Republicans movement can have to what ought properly to be the positions taken by Democrats.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:35:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course you don't see it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Quicklund

                    So come out of  the bubble a bit.  I will ask you again.  What has the GOP become today?  

                    Because the answer as to why the President or any Democratic President at this venture would be having to govern from the position that they would have to govern from is there.

                    The Democrats are not following the Republicans.  What has happened jrooth is that this country's center today is right of the center 20 years ago.  That's just way it is.  

                    The President is going to govern from the current center.  That's just the way it is too.

                    You want the Democrats to take the positions that they had 30 years ago.  Those Democrats don't exist today jrooth if you want the blunt truth.  If they were still around, we wouldn't have elected Ronald Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.  The only real reason we have a second Obama term is because the right went so far to the right that it was deemed extreme.  We got the 2 Clinton terms because DLC moved the party right from the get.

                    This is what politics today looks like.

                    Whether you like or can accept it or not.

                    •  So how far does this logic extend? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Free Jazz at High Noon, Sarenth

                      If a decade or two from now the Republican party is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, is the proper answer for the Democrats to adopt the Tea Party positions of today's Republican Party?

                      What is the point of winning elections if all we accomplish is somewhat slowing our nations rightward drift?

                      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                      by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:55:28 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The logic will extend with the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund

                        American people and what they are willing to do from the local level up to rebuild this country.  

                        Yeah, it may just as well drift to the right of Genghis Kahn if that is what people are comfortable with.

                        Of course it doesn't swing that violently either and when it does, people do push back.

                        They just don't push back to where you would want it to be.

                        Now, if you want to be fatalistic and say what's the point, then fine.  Maybe there is no point for you.

                        Especially if you are now of the opinion that the Democrats = the Tea Party.  

                        •  Reading comprehension ... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sarenth

                          or lack thereof.

                          The Tea Party comment was part of a hypothetical - posed to ask you where the line is for you or if you even draw any line at all.

                          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                          by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:34:52 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

                      Some wit once said, A democracy gets the government it deserves.

                      There is so much uninformed, unrealistic criticism of the individual named Barack Obama on this particular web site. Not all criticism falls into this junk category, of course. But a lot of it does. And much of what does is simple empty labelism.

                      The President isn't a real Democrat! Ah yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy over and over and over.

                      What do these critics really mean, even if they don't quite understand what annoys them so? They mean, People in the Democratic Party have opinions that are different from mine.

                      It's the most empty criticism out there. "Democratic Party opinion" is determined by the aggregated opinions of Democratic Party members. It is not determined by individuals and it is not defined by the opinions characteristic of the thin left tail of the bell curve.

                      As you have ably pointed out, American public opinion has been moving to the right for at least 25 years and probably close to 40, since Nixon resigned and Watergate was put behind us.

                      Critics such as our fellow Kossack here are not mad at Barack Obama.  They are mad at the American population. Now we're getting somewhere.

              •  I doubt that (0+ / 0-)

                the Republicans of 20 years ago were still against social spending.

                •  But D's have bought the R's line (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, Sarenth

                  that the budget needs to be balanced.

                  That's entirely wrong.

                  See my other comments here.

                  United We Understand

                  by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:32:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Honestly, so what? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glynis, Quicklund

                    There is nothing wrong with being fiscally responsible.  To say otherwise would be irresponsible.  

                    Having said that, our government has the power to raise the debt ceiling.

                    •  You misunderstand what (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib, jrooth
                      being fiscally responsible
                      means.

                      The government budget is not an isolated entity that needs to be balanced like a household budget.

                      For a government to act in a "fiscally responsible" manner means it has to fulfill its purpose of shepherding the economy of "We the People" who created it -- that's right, our government is OUR social construct. And it should be there for the overall societal welfare.

                      Being fiscally responsible in down times means having a deficit. The more down, the larger the deficit.

                      Read about MMT at the links I and others have pointed to here.

                      United We Understand

                      by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:46:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, I don't misunderstand it. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        glynis, Quicklund

                        Being fiscally responsible as far as the federal government is concerned does not mean to me that it's like balancing my checkbook.  What it means to me is making responsible decisions to maintain a sound economy in this country.  If I thought that, I wouldn't have added the fact that the government has the right to raise the debt ceiling -- that's part of being fiscally responsible dork.

                        Furthermore, I do not agree that Democrats think that being fiscal responsible = balancing the budget.  I think that some agree that reducing our deficit is being responsible.  However I also believe that it should not be done in a way that damages our economy.

                        •  Your quote (0+ / 0-)
                          What it means to me is making responsible decisions to maintain a sound economy in this country.
                          Do you think the economy is "sound"? Yes or no.

                          If you do not think it is "sound", what do you think is required to make it so a) balancing the budget, b) reducing the deficit, or c) increasing the deficit?

                          United We Understand

                          by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19:28 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  talking about being fiscally responsible (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund

                        as cuts over 10 years which are backloaded does not negate understanding that being fiscally responsible in down times means having a deficit which President Obama has demonstrated by his policies.

                        •  Yes, backloading is better than (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sarenth

                          frontloading.

                          being fiscally responsible in down times means having a deficit which President Obama has demonstrated by his policies.
                          He has never given any indication that he understand the size of the deficit required.

                          His advisors -- Lew, Daley, Geitner … -- all speak the same way and are of the same school of neo-liberal economics.

                          That do not understand the modern monetary reality of a fiat currency.

                          They are still stuck in the mindset pushed by decades of neoliberal economics training.

                          United We Understand

                          by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:24:30 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  More mind-reading (0+ / 0-)

                            You honestly think you have better information and intellectual assets at your beck and call than the pepole at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

                            This is the sort of silly chest-beating that turns criticism of PBO into hyperbole; persuasion into punch lines.

                          •  I don't need to defend myself on any (0+ / 0-)

                            such counts.

                            I have been a vigorous supporter of Obama in the face of criticism -- not here at dKos -- not wanting to get involved in such internecine battles.

                            But in, shall I say, "intense" discussions with family -- against a Nader supporter turned Ron Paul supporter (the latter for both MIC-cuts and despair over Obama's ties with Wall St.), I defended Obama to the extreme.

                            Now the election is over and it's time to do what the President has asked us to do -- show him where and how he has erred.

                            And he is erring here. This will destroy his economic legacy. He's smart enough to know he (and his advisors) DON'T know everything. If anything, he's shown that he knows he's human -- a lesson for us all.

                            That means he's not always right; neither am I; and neither are you.

                            Take a look at this piece by William Black. If you find ANY of the extensive list of facts to dispute in that, let me know.

                            United We Understand

                            by dorkenergy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:04:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, heck, forgot I quoted this already (0+ / 0-)

                            elsewhere -- see  http://www.dailykos.com/....
                            [I made a mistake there -- repeated a line in the quote.]

                            United We Understand

                            by dorkenergy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:11:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  And yet by embracing that fact he won two majority (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund

                elections in a row - perhaps he's on to something?

                Reagan was far, far to the left of todays GOP. Might be too much to suggest his policies were akin to a moderate Dem of 1960 (wait, he WAS a Dem in 1960!); nevertheless, he took the country as far to the right as it was ready to go and ushered in an era of GOP preeminence that is only now being eclipsed. Obama clearly heeds the lesson and is playing a much longer game than a single administration.

                •  If winning elections is all that's important (0+ / 0-)

                  to you, then I suppose you can argue that.

                  But it seems to me the evidence of the last several decades is clear indication that a continual slow movement to the right will never achieve a long-term shift to the left.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:49:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How would get any of the things you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Quicklund

                    advocate for by losing elections?

                    •  How did the radical right get control (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sarenth

                      of the Republican Party?  By being serious about not supporting them if they don't toe the line.  And yes, they've lost elections along the way doing that.

                      So if doing the most to win every election is more important to you than forcing your party's leadership to be responsive to the party's base then my strategy isn't for you.  But the consequence is that you have then incentivized Democratic politicians to continue moving to the right.

                      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                      by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your words, not smoothmellow's (0+ / 0-)
                        So if doing the most to win every election is more important to you than forcing your party's leadership to be responsive to the party's base
                        The straw man argument: The battle flag of the debate loser.
          •  Of course, that's not in context (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FiredUpInCA, Quicklund, askew

            to what makes up the Republican Party today, so comparatively speaking, Quicklund does have a point.

            •  That's surrendering to the relentless rightward (5+ / 0-)

              drift of American political thought.  That the Republicans have become right-wing loonies is no excuse for the Democrats to be right wing not-so-loonies.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:09:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Jrooth, America has been drifting to the right (0+ / 0-)

                for 30 years now.  Where have you been?  You just now seeing this?  You just now acknowledging this?  Do you really think that any Democratic President, let alone Barack Obama, is just going to magically swing the pendulum back the left where you stand?

                It just doesn't work that way.  If you wanted that kind of President (and Obama never was that kind of President), then work to elect a more Progressive one.

                Good luck getting that kind of President elected.  

                In the meantime this President will govern in the center, which is left of the new right.

                That's just way it is.  I don't like it.  You sure as hell don't like it.  

                But pose an alternative that actually will have a chance to work.

                •  American politicians have drifted right...the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jarrayy, Laconic Lib, allenjo

                  voters of America have not.

                    Poll after poll shows that the voters of America embrace leftist policies socially and economically.  The people are simply dismissed in this regard.

                  •  Actually, the problem is that the American public (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrooth, Free Jazz at High Noon

                    is generally more far liberal than they know (or willing to admit) they are.  But it should be clear by now that large numbers of voters have no problem voting against their own interests.  And imho, without even realizing it.

                    This came about when conservatives managed to convince Americans for decades now that being a "liberal" or being "left" was bad.  Very bad.  "Socialist/communist" bad.

                    Yes, you ask the public where they stand on issues, policy by policy, and their answers skew more liberal.  But you ask them how they self-identify, and they'll mostly tell you they're center-right (to avoid the "stigna" of being a socialist/communist).

                    Conservatives only have to be successful in making the liberal/left label stick, and you can write off your progressive candidate's chances, at least in the Presidential race.

                    •  We need to change this and we can if we made a (0+ / 0-)

                      point to do so.

                       We need to change the meme on the following:

                      *that raising taxes, even on those who are not rich, is always bad.

                      You do get benefits that often far outweigh their price per dollar and high taxes for everyone can need a more productive and well equipped future for everyone

                      * that an individualist society is always better than a collective one.

                        We need to make it understood that a collective society is always better and more just and fair than an individual, mine is mine, world

                      *that America has to protect capitalism at all costs

                      Capitalism is evil in most regard...it is greedy, unfair, unjust and well just evil.  A level playing field with worker strong environments and policies and service to country and fellow man is much preferable and fair and just and could be paid for with a strong federal government that actually provides for citizens.

                      *Wealth always belongs to the "earner".  

                      Wealth is a communal effort and should be enjoyed communally.

                      •  Of course we should push back on these outdated (0+ / 0-)

                        right-wing memes, but the items you list are very difficult to achieve, as it requires a complete reversal in the philosophy that has been ingrained in the American psyche from the beginning of the nation.  Americans (in general) are highly resistant to let go of their fantasies that they too will someday be filthy rich.  

                        The country was founded by wealthy men, our constitution and laws drafted by wealthy men, our economic system devised by wealthy men.  The appeal of this country to poorer class and immigrants desperate to escape their meager existence was that America was the (purported) place to go to make your fortune (whether that was the reality is another matter) with little governmental interference.  And if you can't make it here, well, you're just not trying hard enough.

                        I study genealogy.  I've read my ancestors letters.  I know this is what they (and most Americans) believed.  And you know what?  Some of those ancestors of mine did do well (though the depression ultimately wiped out most of what they built).  At that time in that America.

                        But the world has changed, society has changed, America has changed.  But Americans don't want to accept chances in their core beliefs - it's uncomfortable.  It goes against everything they've been always been taught.  Unfortunately, they cling to 19th century ideology that no longer applies in the 21st.  Just try to tell them the system is stacked against them, that we would be better off as a more collective society, and they will fight you tooth and nail, truth be damned.  Because if you try to tell them the truth, you destroy their hopes, their dreams, their fantasies that they've bought into their entire lives.

                        Absolutely no headway on what you suggest has a snowball's chance in hell of being achieved without a complete change in how our citizens are indoctrinated and educated.  It has to start at home as small children and carry on through the schools.  

                        I'm not saying it can't be done.  But if it were to happen at all, it would unfortunately take decades, if not generations, to achieve.  So it's going to take a whole lot of patience (and much disappointment) along the way.

                        •  Spot on comment. Why, it's fair to say that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          edwardssl

                          many of our fellow 'Merkins are clinging to even 18th century ideology ( Articles of Confederation, etc. ) that should not have even applied in the 19th ...

                          "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

                          by New Rule on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:15:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I would have to argue this a bit. (0+ / 0-)

                    Not that I don't agree with the polling, but the real key is who has gotten elected to POTUS.  The last 2 Democratic Presidents were both right of what I would describe as 'traditional progressive Democratic stances of the 70s and 80s.  We wouldn't have gotten the WH back otherwise.

                    It's the same lesson that the GOP is about to learn.  The people are being dismissed because of the money that lobbyists pour into getting members of Congress elected who will vote the way that they want.  Not only don't we have adequate campaign finance reform, we have renegade members of the Supreme Court who has given equal weight to these bag men.

                    This is what we are up against.

                •  It has done this because the Republican base (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jarrayy, Laconic Lib

                  is serious about punishing Republicans (even if it costs them elections) whilst every f**king cycle the left caves to fear-mongering and supports Democrats as they move further right.

                  You're not telling me anything I haven't been ranting about for decades, only to be told time after time after time how we can't do anything truly effective to push them the other way (i.e. do what the Republican base did to push their party to the rihgt - threaten them where it hurts - in the ballot box) because that "would be the same as voting for the Republicans" and they're ever so much worse and this election is the most important election evah and maybe we can ask nicely after we've re-elected them again.

                  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Ad nauseum.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:43:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Same misconstruction as a wrote of earlier. (5+ / 0-)

            The point Mr Obama was making here was on how dramitically the GOP has changed its own stripes.

            Yes, I do remember the days when the GOP and the Democratic Party both were 'bigger tents'. There are still moderate Democrats but there are few if any moderate Republicans.

            "President Obama is a closet Republican" is  intended here on DKos aas an insult, pure and simple. It is not the same sentence as "President Obama could have chose to run as a Republican thirty years ago had he lived in a GOP stronghold as opposed to Chicago."

            Your comment above misconstrues Mr Obama's point in much the same way his critics misconstrue his line of wanting to echo Ronald Reagan's transformative legacy. That does not mean President Obama wants the same policies. It means he also aims for large lasting impact on the nation.

            •  I don't agree I'm misconstuing anything. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Picot verde, Jarrayy, Laconic Lib

              He said the policies he supports are the policies that moderate Republicans of the 1980's would have supported.  There's nothing ambiguous about that.   And frankly one we step outside of purely domestic economic issues and into his "national security" related policies he's way more radically right-wing than moderate '80s Republicans.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:18:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Past tense =/= present tense (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stellaluna, askew

                This is not a hard concept.

              •  What he SAID was (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stellaluna, askew

                I could have been a Republican 30 years ago.

                This is not the same sentance as,

                I support all the policies the Republican majority ended up favoring 30 years ago.

                Again, it was an illustration on how the GOP has changed.

                No one denies PBO is not the most left-leaning Democrat in the Party. But he is a Democrat. It is OK to be moderate and to be a Democrat. And he would not be able to function as a 2012 Republican.

                So give it up, eh?

          •  Yes, Republican policies were moderated (0+ / 0-)

            by a Democratic House of Representatives during the 80s.

            2010 was a tragic power shift.

    •  well let's see (12+ / 0-)

      his actions have expanded medicaid, added 8 years to medicare via the ACA, protected social security and medicare benefits from the sequester cuts.

      Pretty good track record so far.

      •  All that's good, but where he's wrong is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Picot verde, Laconic Lib

        shown in this statement

        But Obama says it seems as though the GOP isn't primarily interested in deficit reduction, rather they are on a ideological bender and are obsessed with going after things like Social Security and Medicare.
        That still indicates he still buys the whole premise that the government needs "debt reduction".

        That's a fundamental misunderstanding -- we need a BIGGER deficit.

        If he maintains that misunderstanding, it will substantially harm the economy and his legacy.

        The problem is, even most Progressives don't understand this.

        And we need to understand in order to teach him.

        We've been living in a modern monetary reality (aka Modern Monetary Theory) but being taught we're still living in a neoliberal world.

        United We Understand

        by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:03:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What part of "10 years" do you find confusing? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glynis, askew

          For some time now, every spending/tax/financial plan that comes out of DC is described over teh next ten years.

          That's a fundamental misunderstanding -- we need a BIGGER deficit.
          LIKE F**K WE DO!

          Not over a 10 year horizon. The entirety of American governance ought not to be done under Keynesian deficit spending principles. At some point in the next 10 years the recession will be over. Like HELL we don't want to reduce the debit over that period.

          There is name for the policies you favor. It is REAGANOMICS and what you are calling for is the primary culprit behind America's existing wealth imbalance.

          I'll leave defending Reaganomics to you.

      •  BUT BUT BUT (6+ / 0-)

        He's just waiting for the right moment to unilaterally abolish the whole safety net.

        Honestly, the argument that so many here try to make is the other side of the coin to people at red state that scream he is trying to unilaterally take all the guns away. They say he wants their guns, people here say he wants granny's thyroid pills.

        •  He doesn't want to "abolish the whole safety net" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jrooth, Laconic Lib

          But he does think that the deficit needs to be reduced.

          And, already, by allowing the payroll tax reduction to expire, has shown he is willing to cut spending.

          So, that means, that, in the end -- whether or not there is a shutdown -- there will likely be cuts.

          To balance the budget.

          When the deficit should be INCREASED.

          United We Understand

          by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:10:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok (0+ / 0-)
            When the deficit should be INCREASED.
            weren't the Republicans howling because the deficit was increased with the tax cuts, UI extension, and other stimulus extensions he just signed?
            •  Last -July- a WH spokesman said (0+ / 0-)

              that the extension of payroll tax reduction was always known be temporary.

              … the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
               A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)[emphasis added]
              That's his mindset. He -- like Dems AND most progressives -- has bought the malarkey.

              United We Understand

              by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  But, as an indicator, he thought (0+ / 0-)

              the payroll tax reduction was always intended to be temporary

              From WaPo last JULY

              … the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
               A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)[emphasis added]

              United We Understand

              by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what's your point? (0+ / 0-)

                there was a great deal of progressive howling about the payroll tax cut to begin with being seen as weakening social security.  So now you're saying it shouldn't have been temporary?

                •  Right -- iiuc, progressives were, (0+ / 0-)

                  in the big picture mistaken to buy the linkage between payroll tax and social security.

                  The big picture is that the government is one entity -- in and out from the one entity. It's called "sectoral balances" in MMT (and elsewhere).

                  There are smaller arguments like about the $100K limit, etc.

                  But, by buying into the discussion about whether "it pays for itself for xx years", we've already lost.

                  We have a monetarily sovereign government -- a social construct that "We, the People" created for OUR benefit.

                  We can create money -- for "social security", "environmental security", "infrastructure integrity", you name it. The debate should be what to spend on and biggest benefit for the buck.

                  That's where the debate should be.

                  And can do so without fear of inflation in down times. Lots of it. Up to the point of full employment (where resources start being constrained and prices therefore rise).

                  Please read the MMT literature I pointed to.

                  United We Understand

                  by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:51:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I heard that question on why Republicans should (0+ / 0-)

      believe him this time. Hopefully this time will be different, but I will also wait for his actions, not just rely on his words.

      "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 Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:36:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site