The biggest mistake by Barack Obama?

[kentuck]

In my opinion, the biggest mistake by this President was when he agreed to negotiate with Boehner and the Republicans. That was not in his job description.

Yes, he can propose a budget and the House and Senate can agree or disagree with it. However, if they disagree, it is up to them to present a budget of their own. The President's job is to execute the laws, not to legislate them.

The President should have jaw-boned the Congress into presenting a budget that he could agree with, rather than him attempting to present a budget that they would agree with. This was the President's biggest blunder, in my opinion. He played the game by their rules.

[99Forever]

1. K&R

Not much needs added to that.

[zbdent]

2. Thinking that Republicans could be reasoned with?

There's a reason why people don't negotiate with terrorists ...

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. He's the only grownup in the room... on the left or on the right... nt

[truebluegreen]

78. Pfft.

The "room" only contains center-right and righty elements. There aren't even any lefties in there. Heard anything--anything at all--from the Progressive Caucus in this discussion? No? Me neither, and they should be considered center-left, nothing more.

[mick063]

4. His biggest mistake?

His ill conceived notion that the corporate thieves have a legitimate voice that needs listened to.

[tblue]

5. Telling us one thing and doing another.

As low as my expectations have now become, he still me in a regular basis. I can forgive failing. I can't forgive faking. His legacy is on the line and somebody's in for a shock.

[JoePhilly]

6. I love the open ended outrage threads.

What I find funny is that you are claiming that Obama's biggest blunder is have proposed a budget, a budget (outline) that the GOP won't agree with.

How exactly is that a blunder?

Did this proposal become a bill and then pass? No.

Are there now new terrible laws on the books? No.

Has a significant program ended? No.

Normally, a blunder, and certainly something one would classify as a "greatest blunder", has had some really terrible impact.

In reality, and for all the hand-wringing, nothing has actually happened.

[kentuck]

9. Just my opinion, Joe...

You're entitled to yours. I just happen to think that the budget is the job of the Congress, even though the President can make his budget requests, the Congress does not have to agree with them. The President's job is not to legislate.

[JoePhilly]

10. No budget is going to pass this congress, period.

I'll also mention this. You seem to think Obama should not try to negotiate with the GOP at all.

The GOP would love that.

They would love for the government to shut down and do nothing every time there is a Democrat in the White House. They hate the government and shutting it down is their first priority anyway. So if the Democrats (or Obama) won't negotiate with the GOP at all, absolutely nothing gets done.

Democrats on the other hand actually want to try and govern. To do that, you can't simply take your ball and go home.

Review any piece of legislation that passed since Obama took office. For every good thing in that legislation, the GOP tries to cram in a few turds. A couple of things that they know the left will hate.

The Democrats can either do nothing (which the GOP would love), or to be able to get something good done at all, they have to put up with some shit too.

Those are the choices, do nothing, or do as much good as you can, knowing that for every good thing you do, the GOP will do something we hate.

Doing nothing is just fine with the GOP.

[kentuck]

14. They will only shut it down one time...

Doing nothing is better than eating shit.

[JoePhilly]

15. Doing nothing IS shutting it down.

You are confusing an official shut down of the government with practical shut down of the government.

Why do you think the House GOP is known as the do-nothing Congress? Because they WANT to do nothing.

Doing nothing is an integral part of their strategic intent.

Its is, in effect, a shut down.

[kentuck]

22. No, they don't want to shut down the government...

They want you to think they are going to shut down the government so you will kiss their ass and give them everything they want, including SS and Medicare cuts. Sometimes you just have to call their bluff.

[JoePhilly]

28. Right, because that's what's actually happened.

And the way you call their bluff is to negotiate and demonstrate that they are not opperating in good faith.

And the idea that they get "everything they want", is nonsense.

[kentuck]

30. I disagree.

The way you call their bluff is to let the American people know they are not doing their job. Why would you put SS cuts on the table just to show you are operating "in good faith"? That is stupidity.

I have never witnessed a more amateurish, wimpy attempt at negotiating in my life. Stand up for what you believe in and people will not ask you to put it on the negotiating table. They will know better. If everything is on the table then nothing is on the table. That is the reality.

[JoePhilly]

33. Obama has called them out for not doing their job.

We've had ~4 years of hair-on-fire OPs predicting that Obama is about to cut a deal to kill Social Security.

Still hasn't happened. Not even close.

But hey, maybe the 20th time will be the charm.

[kentuck]

34. If there was no disagreement from Democrats?

Do you think it would have happened by now? Whatever you say, Mr President...

[JoePhilly]

35. Hummm ...

So what you are saying is that lots of Dems are getting the chance to position themselves as protectors of Social Security. Getting to go on TV and describe how they will not allow cuts to SS.

Interesting ...

It makes me wonder ... can you think of any reason why that would be politically advantageous for Democrats in Congress?

naaaaa.

[kentuck]

40. So why go thru the charade?

That does nothing but demoralize your supporters and threatens your chances in the next election??

[Skittles]

58. it's called pretzel logic, kentuck

it's the only way they can justify this fucking nonsense

[sabrina 1]

17. I'm really trying to understand the defense of putting SS cuts on the table, so bear with

me.

You are saying, and you may be correct, that Democrats do not want to give Republicans the opportunity to say they will not negotiate with them. Fine, I can understand that.

Others here are saying that Republicans will not agree to any proposal the president makes. Fine, I get that also.

So, if these two things are true, and they probably are, why would the President include SS cuts in any attempt to negotiate with them? This is not a popular thing to do with the public in general.

All he has to do is to keep making proposals, absent risking SS, to achieve the goal of showing that Democrats want to negotiate. No need at all to attack SS in order to do that.

Same goes if he believes that the Republicans will not accept any offer he makes. Even more reason to not even think of including SS cuts just to demonstrate this.

SS had zero to do with the deficit and cutting it in any way will not help the deficit. So all he has done to alienate a very large section of his own base. He didn't need to do that in order to demonstrate the recalcitrance of the Republicans.

Worse, he has opened the door for SS to be included in talks about something it has nothing to do with when he should have been saying 'SS did not cause the deficit therefore it is not part of these discussions'.

To me, there is no logic in the defenses offered for this.

[JoePhilly]

27. Those programs exist, the GOP hates them, therefore, they are always on the table.

Its not like the media is going to stop talking about SS. The GOP has been trying to gut those programs forever, and they won't ever stop.

You suggest that Obama could prove that the GOP won't negotiate in good faith without including SS. How does that work exactly?

If there is not something important in there from Obama, some major concession, the GOP can walk away and claim Obama is not acting in good faith. And the media will focus on that. They'd be talking up cuts to SS anyway. So would the GOP. You can't pretend that won't be the case.

Obama is basically saying to the GOP, "Ok, you want cuts to SS? ... what are you willing to give me for those?" Boehner doesn't have an answer because (a) the cuts Obama has discussed are (in the grand scheme of things) tiny, and (b) the House GOP is never going to give up ANYTHING.

But let's pretend Boehner says "ok, we have a deal". Ultimately, House Republicans would still have to draft the actual legislation. And that includes all the little details. Any of which could be used to scuttle the deal.

The GOP house has yet to pass much more than new abortion restrictions and repeals of Obamacare. None of which pass the Senate.

[ljm2002]

43. "Those programs exist, the GOP hates them, therefore, they are always on the table"

Sure, except for one thing: by your reasoning, those programs are on the table because the GOP puts them there.

In this case, those programs are on the table *because our Democratic President put them there*.

You do see the difference, right?

[840high]

62. I see the difference. Thanks.

[tabasco]

23. Wrong. The republicans love government to function.

They want it to function as a funnel of taxpayer money to the 1%.

Perfect examples are massive, useless defense contracts like Star Wars.

[JoePhilly]

29. That's only when THEY control the White House.

When a Democrat controls the White House, their goal is to immobilize the government as much as possible.

When they have the WH, they waste tax payer dollars like crazy.

[The Wizard]

46. Republicans control the House and Senate

the House with the Majority and the Senate with the filibuster. Obama has to do their bidding unless he can convince Reid to abolish the filibuster. When one senator representing 650,000 can block the will of 350 million our system can't get anything done. That Republicans abuse every process possible is the reason for government's failure.
In essence they create chaos where nothing gets accomplished then campaign against a non functioning government. It's the same strategy the National Socialists employed in Germany of the 1930s.

[kentuck]

47. Do you have a link to that National Socialists strategy?

I would like to read that.

[notadmblnd]

12. Thank you so much for saying that

Hopefully some of the outraged ones will read it, think about what you wrote and calm down.

[JoePhilly]

18. Thanks, but I doubt it.

The "calm down" part I mean.

This particular strain of outrage has been going on for about 4 years now.

Obama has been about to kill Social Security (any second) for about 4 years now.

Given the level of outrage in the (endless, basically duplicate) threads, you'd think it had actually happened.

[demwing]

59. "you are claiming that Obama's biggest blunder is have proposed a budget"

Wrong right out of the gate.

The open said the blunder was trying to negotiate afterwards, and I agree. Proposing a budget is swell, negotiating with this congress is beneath the office, and frankly, foolish.

[Life Long Dem]

7. Biggest mistake

Hillary Clinton. Benghazi



Oh my, what did Obama do to Bin Laden! Will people...

[RC]

8. Obama's biggest mistake was putting Social Security and Medicare on the table.

That proves he is not working for us.

[JoePhilly]

11. Those programs exist, the GOP hates them, therefore, they are always on the table.

And they have been since the day they were instituted.

[sabrina 1]

19. They are on the Republican table. NOT on the Democratic table.

We elect Democrats to force them off the table. If Democrats are going to now agree with Republicans, someone better have a very good reason to offer millions of Democrats and Independents as to why they should vote for Democrats.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Well, except for actual history which includes Nixon raising benefits by 10% and calling for

inflation adjustments in the first place, he said it was our right to have Social Security protected from inflation. Went on and on about it. Nixon. During economic hard times. Raised benefits.
Obama offered up cuts and did not even make the Republicans ask for them. If he thinks he's negotiating he better think again.
The OP is correct. Make the opposition ask for the awful things they want, do not offer them your first born and hope they say no.
Those programs are not always on the table. When they have been, it has been a scourge to those who placed them there. Which is why they are not always on the table.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Nope, to be on the table both sides have to agree they are negotiable.

What you describe is the TeaPubliKlans relentlessly attempting to place them on the table and the Democratic response is supposed to be FUCK NO!!! and to hammer the hell out of them for daring to speak of such things.

[kentuck]

24. That wouldn't be... civilized ..

here....have a little Grey Poupon.

[1-Old-Man]

68. Nonsense - Republican may hate Social Security, but Democrats don't put it on the table

[tabasco]

25. I agree.

It's unfathomable that he is willing to negotiate benefit cuts. I've been paying into SS since I was 16 fucking years old and those sorry-ass republican motherfuckers and cowardly democrats need to keep their fucking hands off of it!

[whathehell]

32. +100 n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. Really, what does he care. He'll never have to rely solely on either as many of those he is

over do, by putting both on the table.


I wonder if he thinks about that, while he is busy trying to appease the repukes.

[indepat]

13. Playing nice in a den of rattlesnakes will get you bitten numerous times every

time: it's a suicidal death wish.

[KG]

16. ACA - the quaint notion that insurance companies give a shit about providing health care.

[L0oniX]

26. It still is idiotic to even try to work out anything with them. n/t

[Marr]

31. It was end-run around his own party.

Obama knew his "Grand Bargain" would be to the right of what his own party would ever propose. By making it a negotiation between himself and the right-wing party, he could provide political cover for his own party and push things much further.

It was a sensible thing to do, if your intention was to push things like the Chained CPI (also known as "making the tough decisions" in 1% circles).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Don't you know how it works in DC?

When a Republican wins he has a mandate from the people and Democrats are expected to shut up and accept that America wants a Right Wing Agenda.

When a Democrat wins he is expected to stop the division and explain to his base that they have to compromise so everyone will be happy.

[duffyduff]

38. We KNOW how it "works" in D.C.

The only difference is the Democrats are now in on this game of screwing over the American people to help the fraction of one percent who want to destroy the country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. No. This is a case of trading core values...

Republicans have a core value of tax cuts for the rich therefore Obama is expected to give up a core value in return.

They consider that "fair" in DC.

Forget what America wants. Forget the election, that doesn't matter. The attitude there is that Republicans rule and Democrats are temporarily in office.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

39. Not letting the fucking Bush tax cuts expire when they were supposed to.

At least that's one of them.

Offering to fuck with SS and Medicare is another.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Psst...the top marginal rate went back up to the Clinton rate this year.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

64. Psst...too little, too late.

We're left with fiscal cliffs, sequestration, still unacceptably high unemployment, crisis fiscal "governance," and uncertainty. No way to run a country, Darwin.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. This focus on finance was ANNOUNCED by Republicans,...

...after they lost all credibility on National Security.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. And?

If he's as "masterful" as I keep being told he is, he would have beat them at their own game. Problem is, he identifies with them too much. A Democratic president should be willing to go to the fucking mat to advance core Democratic principles... it's really not that difficult. And if he had actually used the bully pulpit to set the nation straight on the Affordable Care Act, rather than letting frothing Teabaggers run wild claiming Grandma was going to be offed, things might have turned out VASTLY different in 2010.

[kentuck]

67. The Bush tax cuts were restored on only about 5% or less of tax payers...

As if letting them expire on everyone would have been more of a hardship than the present sequester etc...? There was at least $3 trillion dollars lost by this silly maneuver.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

70. I live in North Carolina, where extended UI benefits end July 1st...

thanks to Republicans who swept power in 2010. Unemployment is currently around 9.5%. The nation needed that revenue desperately, not to be dicking around years later with fiscal cliffs, sequestration, etc. The "pain" has gone on entirely too long.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. That was the TOP 5%...

That was where the bulk of the Bush Tax Cuts went.

[kentuck]

73. Not really.

It will accrue about $1 trillion over ten years. If the entire tax increases had been restored, there would have been another $3 trillion in revenues. That was a bird in the hand. Now they say we need more revenues?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. Face it. The Republicans will NEVER be satisfied....

Under Democrats we hear unemployment is at 7% and that's a disaster.

Under Republicans we hear that 93% of the people are working and that's wonderful.

[ljm2002]

41. Well he's supposed to be a smart guy...

...so IMO there is no "blunder" involved. He's doing what he wants. Which is all the more disappointing.

But then are we really surprised? He gave us the Simpson-Bowles cat food commission, then continued to promote their conclusions, even though their own commission never signed off on them.

He also promised to put on his comfortable shoes and walk with the unions. Except when the opportunity arose to do so, he was nowhere to be found. He wasn't out there walking with them, and hell, he wasn't even talking the talk back in DC.

Like Clinton, Obama is poised to cash in big time after his Presidency. And that seems to be what it's all about these days, whether a politician is a Democrat or a Republican. It's the real reason Mitt wanted the Presidency, IMO -- the opportunity to cash in even bigger than he already has.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. Correct on all counts.

[Catherina]

45. Mistake? That was a deliberate tactic. There was no mistake. All is going according to plan

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. Rec.

Exactly right.

How can anyone pretend to believe otherwise?

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Yes Indeed!

[Peregrine Took]

50. Not having a core set of political beliefs.

Its obvious he doesn't have one as he swings from one issue to another like a wind sock - no cohesion.

[eilen]

60. Exactly. Who the hell is this guy?

Lucky us, America the Free. We get to choose between the lackeys for the rich and the White Supremecist crazy party.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. That's a very good point...

with marriage equality as a prime example. He finally took a stand, but my guess is he doesn't fully embrace "gay marriage." Thanks to Joe Biden's big mouth, and as others have suggested, deep-pocketed Hollywood applying the screws, he didn't have much of a choice.

[robinlynne]

51. again. and again. and again.

[bottomofthehill]

54. The President is actually required by law to submit a Budget the first week in Feb

The budget act requires the President submit one.

[kentuck]

57. But the Congress is not required to accept it.

It is up to the Congress to pass all laws relating to spending for our government.

[bottomofthehill]

63. Absolutely, the House and Senate need to produce a budget too

The strange thing is that even if the house and senate could agree on one and if the president signed it, it is still not binding. The budget is actually just a big circle jerk...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Thinking that his job is to make nice with the Republicans

They don't understand "nice." They see it as a sign of weakness.

[David Zephyr]

56. K&R. The public has always trusted Democrats when it came to Social Security. Now? I don't know.

One of the Democratic Party's bankable assets at election time was that Seniors knew that one party would protect their Social Security check.

It's called the "third rail of politics" for good reason.

This will win President Obama nothing, but will cost the Democratic Party a lot of "trust" with Seniors.

[eilen]

61. The poor used to rely on the Democrats until the 90's.

They have been functionally unrepresented. Hey Middle Class, if you can bring yourself to rub shoulders with the destitute, they may have some room under their cardboard shack for ye.

[Eddie Haskell]

66. All the Democrats need to say is ...

But out!

[SoCalDem]

74. Not letting the Bush tax cuts *all of them* expire when Bush's deadline was due.

The waffling on that set the table for what was to come..Part of that plan should have been an IMMEDIATE surtax/charge/levy on each share of stock traded...and a minimum "hold" time before "flipping" the stocks. Shut the casino down..

Republicans were desolate & hopelessly unraveled at that particular time , and BHO could have taken charge then.

We had complete control then, and should have ended the filibuster and immediately put voting procedures legislation on the front burner (protect the future, and lessen the redistricting fiasco that was looming).

Next on the agenda should have been raising taxes & cutting out loopholes (all of them) for people over a certain income.

Single-payer healthcare ( or medicare for all....instead of the patchwork quilt we now have) on a fast-track should have been next (alongside ending the cap on SS income deductions)

Had those things been done, the '10 elections might not have been so awful for us.

[kentuck]

76. Yep..

That is the type of aggressiveness that was needed.

[SoCalDem]

77. Speed was of the essence

and they should have also immediately exposed the little coup attempt on inauguration night.. This was no secret

[WorseBeforeBetter]

79. K&R