Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:47:26

i get the feeling dajafi types would go for bloomberg. i dont know what id do

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:55:09

I wish Obama had held the line against Republicans, but I think he got what he wanted here: this won't come up again until 2013, and now all incmubents can sell the idea that government does work and compromise was reached blah blah blah to the general electorate. In 2012, if the economy recovers some more, incumbents should do well; Obama in particular can use this deal as a set piece, saying how he promised to change Washington, and he did, brought compromise, etc. Undecided/independent voters - the ones who determine the outcomes of elections - like the idea of Republicans and Democrats compromising together, and this should play well for all incumbents. And in 2013 with no second term to think about, when the whole issue comes up again, Obama and his team can hold the line on taxes if Republicans in the House want to play a game.

$2 trillion in cuts over 10 years is really nothing when compared to the overall national debt and even the year-in, year-out debt the country faces (the debt over just the next two years is $3T); Medicare and SS won't be touched. This is Obama delaying the real issue for two years down the line, and bascially clearing shit out of the way for the 2012 election. He had to give up some spending cuts to get that. Whatever.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:57:02

this is where we differ. im worried he got what he wanted. what im most concerned about is the super commission where the republicans just need one kent conrad to be complicit in finally killing ss medicaid and medicare

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:00:22

pacino wrote:this is where we differ. im worried he got what he wanted.

Why? Obama has been pretty lefty in some key areas. His appointments to the labor relations board have been good; you can tell because publications like The Financial Times and The Economist won't shut up about how bad they are, to the point of hysteria. The healthcare legislation was a major piece, even if imperfect.

It's not a dictatorship pacino, you have to take scaled down versions of the things you want most. In 2013, if Obama wins, I am sure we will see an increase in marginal tax rates for the top bracket (maybe not anybody else, but them anyway). Obama will have been recently re-elected, so he will still have some juice, but he won't have any reason to back off of that request.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:01:34

pacino wrote:this is where we differ. im worried he got what he wanted. what im most concerned about is the super commission where the republicans just need one kent conrad to be complicit in finally killing ss medicaid and medicare

Republican voters continue to be heavily skewed toward the elderly. Unless Republicans have a deathwish, SS and medicare won't go anywhere because of one committee member.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:05:47

my problem with the way he negotiates is he starts with the centrist position and then deals with the batshit position and settles on center right, such as the healthcare legislation or the tax deal. he's a bad compromiser because he thinks he' s dealing with genuine actors in mcconnell and boehner and he thinks he can somehow appease their rank and file.

he needs to be strong. jh will scoff at this but he needs to be like pelosi. she was a great leader and passed a lot of sensible stuff that got held up by the pointless 41 seat republican majority in the old folks' home.

by **td11** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:08:25

tbf, obama has been dealing with some pretty reasonable guys like boehner, cantor, mcconnell, etc.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:09:53

td11 wrote:tbf, obama has been dealing with some pretty reasonable guys like boehner, cantor, mcconnell, etc.

only a guy like cantor can make a guy like boehner look reasonable.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:11:06

pacino wrote:he needs to be strong. jh will scoff at this but he needs to be like pelosi. she was a great leader and passed a lot of sensible stuff that got held up by the pointless 41 seat republican majority in the old folks' home.

You're making the argument for Obama here. Pelosi could pass legislation that would guarantee a latter-day Eden for everyone in America, but if it won't pass the Senate it's worthless. I think controlling the House is the most important element in politics, in that the House can always set a starting point for negotiations, but it's still subject to political reality.

As to whether this is good or bad (the Senate filibuster), I could go either way on it; I just wish it were settled, one way or the other. Either have the filibuster solidly in place - beyond questioning - or don't have it, and make all legislation passable by a simple majority.

Either would have good and bad effects.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:12:44

look, ive been pretty pro-obama when i spoke with other liberals and understand incrementalism. this isnt that. this capitulation. no deal was necessary. no super duper fantabulous commission is necessary. you say f this, im the prez bitches and i got the constitution on my side..we paying our bills whether you like it or not. then you brush off that shoulder.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:15:04

mozartpc27 wrote:
pacino wrote:he needs to be strong. jh will scoff at this but he needs to be like pelosi. she was a great leader and passed a lot of sensible stuff that got held up by the pointless 41 seat republican majority in the old folks' home.

You're making the argument for Obama here. Pelosi could pass legislation that would guarantee a latter-day Eden for everyone in America, but if it won't pass the Senate it's worthless. I think controlling the House is the most important element in politics, in that the House can always set a starting point for negotiations, but it's still subject to political reality.

As to whether this is good or bad (the Senate filibuster), I could go either way on it; I just wish it were settled, one way or the other. Either have the filibuster solidly in place - beyond questioning - or don't have it, and make all legislation passable by a simple majority.

Either would have good and bad effects.

it supposed to be a majority. throw out the Robert byrd memorial rulebook, imo, or let's just go the whole way and throw out the senate.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:18:28

Nate Silver explains, indirectly, how the table has been set for the republicans to eat one another

mostly because they do not understand anything - not one single thing - about economics (mainly, that it is not merely about accounting)

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:19:19

pacino wrote:look, ive been pretty pro-obama when i spoke with other liberals and understand incrementalism. this isnt that. this capitulation. no deal was necessary. no super duper fantabulous commission is necessary. you say f this, im the prez bitches and i got the constitution on my side..we paying our bills whether you like it or not. then you brush off that shoulder.

But I think you are ignoring the overall strategy. You know the bills were getting paid, I know the bills were getting paid, Obama surely knew the bills were getting paid.

So why has the whole debate been framed around "zOMG DEFAULT"?

If Obama had wanted to push for marginal tax hikes on the top rate, for example, in his speech last Monday he could have explained to everyone that NOTHING would stop our bills from getting paid, in full, so everyone should calm down. He didn't; instead, he basically pushed at how vital it was to get a "compromise" done by tomorrow that would prevent this from coming up for debate again before the next election.

His #1 priority was clear, he got it at a price he could live with, and now he hopes he can "de-politicize" this process next time because his re-election campaign won't be hanging in the balance. The path forward for him is clear now: focus all efforts on re-election, and, assuming a win, make a tax hike on the top rate the priority of his second-term policy (without ever saying as much during the 2012 election).

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:21:35

that piece kind of shows that the republican voter appears to not understand we have to pay for things we want.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:21:37

pacino wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
pacino wrote:he needs to be strong. jh will scoff at this but he needs to be like pelosi. she was a great leader and passed a lot of sensible stuff that got held up by the pointless 41 seat republican majority in the old folks' home.

You're making the argument for Obama here. Pelosi could pass legislation that would guarantee a latter-day Eden for everyone in America, but if it won't pass the Senate it's worthless. I think controlling the House is the most important element in politics, in that the House can always set a starting point for negotiations, but it's still subject to political reality.

As to whether this is good or bad (the Senate filibuster), I could go either way on it; I just wish it were settled, one way or the other. Either have the filibuster solidly in place - beyond questioning - or don't have it, and make all legislation passable by a simple majority.

Either would have good and bad effects.

it supposed to be a majority. throw out the Robert byrd memorial rulebook, imo, or let's just go the whole way and throw out the senate.

And that might be fine; but remember, while maybe the elimination of the filibuster would have allowed a restoration of the pre-Bush tax rates before 2011, no filibuster would have meant some awful piece of legislation or two would have passed that didn't during Bush's first 6 years. Remember how badly Republicans wanted that thing gone in 2005-2006?

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:23:39

i guess i dont have hope any of that 2012 stuff will happen.

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:24:53

mozartpc27 wrote:
pacino wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
pacino wrote:he needs to be strong. jh will scoff at this but he needs to be like pelosi. she was a great leader and passed a lot of sensible stuff that got held up by the pointless 41 seat republican majority in the old folks' home.

You're making the argument for Obama here. Pelosi could pass legislation that would guarantee a latter-day Eden for everyone in America, but if it won't pass the Senate it's worthless. I think controlling the House is the most important element in politics, in that the House can always set a starting point for negotiations, but it's still subject to political reality.

As to whether this is good or bad (the Senate filibuster), I could go either way on it; I just wish it were settled, one way or the other. Either have the filibuster solidly in place - beyond questioning - or don't have it, and make all legislation passable by a simple majority.

Either would have good and bad effects.

it supposed to be a majority. throw out the Robert byrd memorial rulebook, imo, or let's just go the whole way and throw out the senate.

And that might be fine; but remember, while maybe the elimination of the filibuster would have allowed a restoration of the pre-Bush tax rates before 2011, no filibuster would have meant some awful piece of legislation or two would have passed that didn't during Bush's first 6 years. Remember how badly Republicans wanted that thing gone in 2005-2006?

by **pacino** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:28:01

stupid phone.

republicans were right.

back to work now for me.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:44:41

I will say this: Democrats are still reaping the fruits of the events of 1990-1992. Back in 1990, Democrats were able to force Bush 41 into doing the right thing and agreeing to some tax hikes to get some control over the budget after the profligacy of the 1980s. Then, during the run-up to the 1992 election, instead of citing Bush's change of course as proof that Democratic policies were simply better than Republican ones - i.e., a message that said, "Even Bush had to act like a Democrat in order to get our fiscal house in order, so maybe you should consider putting a REAL Democrat back into office," they basically played that "Read my lips" pledge over and over and over again, screamed, '"That sonofabitch raised your taxes after he said he wouldn't," and let voters essentially connect the bad economy with Bush's broken promise.

This worked wonderfully in the short term - Clinton was elected and enjoyed majorities in the House and Senate - but the longer term effects are still on display. Instead of teaching once again the lesson that politicians in a Democracy should avoid talking in absolute terms, that whole fiasco taught an entire generation of Republicans to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, never be aparty to a tax rise, no matter what, because if you are, Democrats will just turn around and use it to show that you don't keep your promises, etc.

And here we are.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:55:37

Romney against deal

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Archived

Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible