Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama sends clear message in weekly address: 'I will not negotiate' (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  he tips his hand: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PorridgeGun
    I will work with anyone who wants to have a serious conservation about our economic future.
    These are the code words he uses whenever he's talking about cutting SS/Medicare. I don't think he'll have any more luck getting Republican support for a Grand Bargain this time than he did the last three or four times.

    Obama has been very very careful not to mention the Grand Bargain recently. That's how you can be sure that that's the only thing on his mind here.

    This battle over the ACA is a complete smokescreen to hide what's really going on here. The main parts of the law are self-funded and not susceptible to being defunded. The only way to defund those parts of the law is to repeal it. The GOP knows this. Obama knows this. So why is he pretending that this is an actual battle that he needs to fight? Why doesn't he laugh and tell them that what they want is impossible?

    It's because, after making totally unnecessary concessions to the GOP, he will declare "victory" by claiming he stopped them from defunding the ACA. He will hide the fact that we're objectively worse off after these concessions, by claiming that he prevented them from doing something that they couldn't have done anyway and defining that to be "victory."

    The GOP will "compromise" by not blowing up the economy, and Obama will "compromise" by agreeing to another, deeper sequester or some other kind of cut that brings them closer to the Grand Bargain.

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

    by limpidglass on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 07:35:52 AM PDT

    •  There won't be a grand bargain (0+ / 0-)

      There won't be deeper cuts. At worst, the sequester gets set in stone and the rest of his presidency is a succession of continuing resolutions to fund the government. The only debt ceiling "compromise" I see is the "McConnell Rule" which gives the president the unilateral authority to lift it. I could support that. I do not support concessions beyond that but I don't think there is much need for concern since Republicans can't even get on the same page for their wet dream ransom note.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 07:59:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there won't be a Grand Bargain because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PorridgeGun

        the GOP is united on not wanting to raise taxes. There won't be a default because the teabaggers' wealthy corporate patrons will tell them to back down or lose their funding.

        There will be additional cuts for sure, just like last time. Boehner needs to save face by getting some amount of cuts, and Obama needs to save face by not allowing the GOP to make as deep cuts as they want. The end result will be more cuts.

        Obama has already agreed not to roll back the sequester.

        All cuts from now on are on top of the sequester cuts. We sure as hell are not going back to previous levels of funding, no way. Obama's agreed to that.

        So, in fact, AT BEST "the sequester gets set in stone and we the rest of his presidency is a succession of continuing resolutions to fund the government."

        And what do you think will happen when the next CR expires? The GOP will pull the same shit and threaten a shutdown unless all their demands are met. And again Obama will refuse to roll back the previous cuts. So we will end up with still more cuts after the next round of "negotiations" is over.

        This pattern will continue until one of two things happens: Obama finally gives up and offers the GOP SS/Medicare cuts without any tax raises, which will cause the economy to tank and blow up the Democratic party; or the cuts to the budget become so big that they tank the economy and blow up the Democratic party.

        I don't think there is much need for concern since Republicans can't even get on the same page for their wet dream ransom note.
        Um, so what? Like any good haggler, they know that their first offer should be outrageously high, far beyond what the other guy is willing to give. The more they initially demand, the more they'll end up with. It's basic bargaining tactics.

        Since Obama has not walked away no matter how ridiculous their demands become, they feel free to be ever more  outrageous.

        Each time there's a "compromise" resulting in additional cuts, they come closer to their goal: shrinking the government. And are they having to give up anything? As far as I've seen, they haven't.

        Only by Obama's bizzaro definition of success would you give away something for nothing and then claim victory because you didn't give away more.

        In reality, Democrats are slowly losing ground here. And so is the country because we're being slowly deprived of vital government services by these successive cuts. This game of austerity chicken is going to result in an economic crisis.

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

        by limpidglass on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Point is they've scuppered their own ransom note (0+ / 0-)

          They are split into so many factions they don't seem to be able to pass anything without help from Pelosi.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 08:38:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hope really does spring eternal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PorridgeGun

            I don't understand why people keep believing that this crop of Republicans can somehow be persuaded to engage in bipartisanship, despite all evidence to the contrary.

            They've twice threatened to destroy the world economy. So why does anyone believe these people will ever act in a sane and responsible manner?

            After some chest-thumping, Boehner's going to "back down" from a default threat he had no intention of going through with, but he'll exact a price--more cuts--and Obama's going to appease him by supporting that "compromise." The teabaggers will scream bloody murder about the tyrant Obama oppressing them yet again, but enough of them will vote for the cuts nonetheless. Pelosi has no role to play in this, just like the last two times.

            I'll close with a parable. One person is completely delusional and out of touch with reality. Another person repeatedly puts a gun in that person's hand, saying "I just want him to show that he's capable of acting like a rational adult. I know I can make him do it, if only I try hard enough."

            Each time the first person pulls the trigger, he only inflicts superficial wounds because he can't aim straight, but each time he runs out of bullets, the second person reloads the gun and puts it back into the first person's hand, saying "Now I'm sure he'll behave like an adult. I just know he will."

            Which person is crazier, the first or the second?

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

            by limpidglass on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 08:59:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  A Grand Bargain with SS cuts wouldn't go (0+ / 0-)

      anywhere.  Everyone hates it except maybe Obama (who knows?) and a few ex-Republican fossils.  We and others have done a good job of responding to its mention, sortof like an inoculation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site