Skip to main content

From President Obama this afternoon regarding the upcoming debt limit confrontation:

"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they have already racked up," Obama said in remarks in the White House.
Very well crafted, Mr. President.....

But.......

Ultimately, quite worthless.

Since.....

...I will not have another debate with this Congress...
renders it meaningless, since 'this' Confgress ceases to exist tomorrow.

So you will be able to hem and haw and give in and give away who knows what entitlements that will hurt children, seniors, the disabled, the unemployed, etc. when the "next" Congress comes at you in a matter of weeks.......

Of course, you could have said 'Congress" instead of 'this Congress', but then we would have something to hold you to.

I am hoping I am not merely letting the Toby Zeigler side of my personae override my continual hope........

Poll

The President added 'this Congress" deliberately.

26%37 votes
19%27 votes
15%21 votes
5%8 votes
16%23 votes
15%22 votes

| 139 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:39:35 PM PST

  •  This is meant to be humorous, I guess. (6+ / 0-)

    As a serious diary, it's pretty stupid.
    Basically, you're implying that everyone who has something good to say about the President is a babykiller.
    There. Tit for tat. Let the games begin.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:50:55 PM PST

  •  I don't believe the President (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misterwade, WattleBreakfast

    for a second when he says he won't negotiate with Congress on this, but I highly doubt he used this Congress so that he could say he kept his word.

    I mean he's already given up the $250K limit which he was definitive about and won an election on and gone back on the promise that SS would not be changed.   What's a little negotiating with Congress flip-flop when you've let your base (and many older Independents and Republicans) down on SS.

    •  Social Security was not changed (8+ / 0-)

      By last night's deal, in any way whatsoever.  Many times in the past Obama has "offered" to do something he had no intention of doing, and in the end, the proof was, he did not do it.  This has happened again.

      •  You can spin it all you like (0+ / 0-)

        but offering the chained CPI change to SS in a deal that could have been accepted by Republicans is going back on his word on this.

        Even if you are pretty certain it won't be accepted, you have put it on the table and don't be surprised to see it come back in future negotiations.

    •  But marginal rates are the same a Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      and effect income the same, when did he change SS? When was it a fact and not a rumor it was offered? The GOP walked away from all their SS demands why would they do that if they had already gotten part of what they wanted. If you are ever curious about the budget and what is offered in negotiations the information is available on whitehouse.gov.

      The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

      by cherie clark on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:32:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  SS changes were clearly offered in his grand (0+ / 0-)

        bargain, I'm not sure why you think this was just a rumor.

        The President campaigned for 2 years on increasing taxes on those making over $250K and the first chance he gets after the election he lets it go up to $400K.

        I like the President, I don't like him campaigning on one thing and then doing another.

        •  Yes they were and he knew the Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          would never take it. If he actually offered it this time to you think for a hot second the Republicans would have walked away from it?? I mean seriously. I don't think he had a lot of choice about the 400K, besides when you adjust everything out is is basically the same as the Clinton levels. Plus they are going to rework the tax code there is more revenue there. I was listening to Ed the idiot Rendell, he's saying the President has to give up some on SS like chained CPI and raising the age for Medicare. If the President doesn't cave on these touchy issues then the Republicans will block everything else he wants to do. REALLY! Rendell would have him give away the farm. I'm not worried about the President not doing right by us, but I am worried about other Dems who aren't with the program and won't just shut up. Guys like Rendell give the Republicans hope. His budget BTW is on ine at whtehouse.gov, ought to take a look at it.

          The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

          by cherie clark on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Since it's the time of the year to make... (5+ / 0-)

    predictions, I've got one on how this debt ceiling thing will play out.

    The republicans are going to push Obama into a corner by not yielding at all on the debt ceiling forcing Obama to take some extraordinary action to keep the country from defaulting on it's obligations. And the day after he does that, they will start hearings to impeach him for taking that action.

    I put nothing past the republicans.

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by reflectionsv37 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:54:06 PM PST

  •  I think the sequester was purposefully kicked (3+ / 0-)

    down the road to this time to largely coincide with debt ceiling so GOP can use the sequester to hold hostage/negotiate over and Pres Obama will give there while symbolically getting a clean raising of the debt ceiling to send a message that America should be unquestioned when it comes to paying it's debts.  

    Sequester is two months down the road, I believe I read the debt ceiling would be early March.  So any hostage taking/dealings/negotiations/entitlement cuts will be hashed out over sequester cuts.  And then the week later Pres Obama will get a clean debt ceiling raise.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:12:21 PM PST

  •  I am watching the west wing right now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lockewasright, glorificus, Anima

    I think your pulling a Ziegler and reading a bit too much into this one.

    "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford

    by sixeight120bpm on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:17:08 PM PST

  •  Is this snark? (3+ / 0-)

    I certainly hope so. Not even Bill Clinton could get away with that kind of a wiggle.

  •  OR.... he could finally pull the trigger .... (3+ / 0-)

    ... on the Constitutional Option, unilaterally raise the debt limit, and take the gun out of the infants' hands once and for all.

  •  All these cuts and gives rich people a tax break. (0+ / 0-)
  •  This analysis is right up there with the way that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kickemout

    Republicans used his slip, "You didn't build that," when grammar would have dictated "You didn't build those." My hunch is, about as relevant, too.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:35:06 PM PST

  •  Your poll is missing the option (0+ / 0-)

    DUH!

  •  Medicare (2+ / 0-)

    You don't need to resort to tricky interpretations of what the president said to understand that cutting entitlements is going to be on the table. The president was quite open about saying that we have to fix Medicare. Medicare is the biggest entitlement item by far that impacts the deficit over the next decade or so. Either we need to dramatically increase payroll taxes to fund Medicare, or tax the wealthy even more which would turn Medicare into a welfare program and make it less politically popular, or we have to find some savings in the program. Or some combination of the above.  

    The smart thing for progressives to do instead of whining about how the president is going to sell you out would be to figure out how to make those savings without hurting people's health. You start by recognizing that a lot of medical supplies and drugs cost way too much, and trying to figure out how to reduce that. Then you figure out more efficient ways to practice medicine, and ways to reduce billing for unnecessary procedures. Medicare spending is a real issue that does need to be addressed in some fashion.

    •  Our entire healthcare system is a failure. Fee (0+ / 0-)

      for service just does not work, it just guarantee's the doctors will over prescribe services or under prescribe depending whose nickel it is on the table.  Medicare, prescribe away, insurance companies, it depends on your plan meanwhile, people go bankrupt or die from lack of good healthcare.

  •  I favor a two step strategy here (0+ / 0-)

    1) Have the President use the so-called "Constitutional Option" and use the 14th Amendment to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether.

    2) Have Congress call an national constitutional convention in order to propose a brand new United States Constitution.

    Neither of those will happen, however.

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:35:01 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site