Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:26 PM Apr 2013

Krugman on Who is Obama trying to Impress?

This is so ON.

After getting into the WHY of it all (That the WH says that Obama wants to prove that he wants a grand bargain and to prove that Republicans will not compromise) Krugman asks the big question.

The question is, to whom are these things being “proved”?

Since the beginning, the Obama administration has seemed eager to gain the approval of the grownups — the sensible people who will reward efforts to be Serious, and eventually turn on those nasty, intransigent Republicans as long as Obama and co. don’t cater too much to the hippies.This is the latest, biggest version of that strategy. Unfortunately, it will almost surely fail. Why? Because there are no grownups — only people who try to sound like grownups, but are actually every bit as childish as anyone else.

After all, if whoever it is that Obama is trying to appeal to here — I guess it’s the Washington Post editorial page and various other self-proclaimed “centrist” pundits — were willing to admit the fundamental asymmetry in our political debate, willing to admit that if DC is broken, it’s because of GOP radicalism, they would have done it long ago. It’s not as if this reality was hard to see.

But the truth is that the “centrists” aren’t sincere. Calls for centrism and bipartisanship aren’t actual demands for specific policies — they’re an act, a posture these people take to make themselves seem noble and superior. And that posture requires blaming both parties equally, no matter what they do or propose. Obama’s budget will garner faint praise at best, quickly followed by denunciations of the president for not supplying the Leadership (TM) to make Republicans compromise — which means that he’s just as much at fault as they are, see? ...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/imaginary-grownups/

165 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman on Who is Obama trying to Impress? (Original Post) cthulu2016 Apr 2013 OP
Why offer up something that has nothing to do with the deficit? neverforget Apr 2013 #1
Well I have been told that he isn't 'serious'. He's just trying to show the public that Republicans sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #10
You sum up the situation JEB Apr 2013 #15
"11 dimensional cluster fuck" - I hope you copyrighted that one. SomeGuyInEagan Apr 2013 #35
Sounds like Mr. Evil Apr 2013 #134
Mybe he's not trying to impress anyone.,.just trying to do his job as he sees it. Good! nt kelliekat44 Apr 2013 #135
Perfect! broadcaster75201 Apr 2013 #39
+1000 n/t truebluegreen Apr 2013 #115
"He should have stayed in the Senate." SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #133
Nice. blackspade Apr 2013 #40
At some point, they'll grow tired of the games and just speak the truth. Right? Right??? reformist2 Apr 2013 #131
I've heard the same things.... KoKo Apr 2013 #19
+1 Except SOME people do care. Bernie comes to mind. gateley Apr 2013 #24
True, but out of over 200 Democratic Representatives only a very few care the way Bernie does. sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #123
I know -- way too few. We can count them on one hand. gateley Apr 2013 #126
Goodness knows, I've tried Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #144
Maybe he should offer to resign for a deal? notadmblnd Apr 2013 #38
Well, that would be a better way to accomplish this goal of showing the public how Republicans sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #124
Why would people care if Republicans "don't like him"?..Who told him this is about HIM? whathehell Apr 2013 #77
Indeed. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2013 #91
agree sajal58 Apr 2013 #101
Welcome to DU sajal58! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #127
sky is falling , again...., kardonb Apr 2013 #112
Leading in a reasonable, rational way? truebluegreen Apr 2013 #116
Well, we were told to stay calm during the Health Care debate. We were told not to worry, he really, sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #122
Agreed completely kenfrequed Apr 2013 #157
The Republicans will really like him when he gets the base so upset dflprincess Apr 2013 #120
As if the public John2 Apr 2013 #163
Because the Republicans don't like it AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #87
Then why not increase the cap? They don't like that either. neverforget Apr 2013 #97
Social Security = 'it' AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #104
Republican's don't like the raise the cap idea because it's a tax increase on business. xtraxritical Apr 2013 #136
Do nothing, and the trust fund will be exhausted eventually michigandem58 Apr 2013 #98
Baloney. Many of the baby boomers will be dead by the date of the pessimistic projections duffyduff Apr 2013 #106
So the trust fund will never be exhausted michigandem58 Apr 2013 #117
Raising employment and the cap will keep SS going for a hundred years. Without doing anything sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #125
Thank you Sabrina. xtraxritical Apr 2013 #137
You and I would raise the cap tomorrow michigandem58 Apr 2013 #150
Well, there have always been Republicans in Congress. They have different ideas about issues. That sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #156
Basically. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #149
Uhm... kenfrequed Apr 2013 #159
This is why the liberalmedia don't invite Krugman on their pundit shows tularetom Apr 2013 #2
Occams razor? Vinnie From Indy Apr 2013 #34
+1 Nailed it magellan Apr 2013 #44
By their fruits shall you know them. wilsonbooks Apr 2013 #48
Hard thing to admit-- being played/duped, that is. SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #138
Succinctly put. (n/t) WorseBeforeBetter Apr 2013 #63
WINNER BrotherIvan Apr 2013 #71
YOU GOT IT Maven Apr 2013 #74
Exactly! FiveGoodMen Apr 2013 #83
Agreed PBO is the compromised President. Why would the GOP run him when they can let the Democratic Vincardog Apr 2013 #92
Yeap, shouldah voted for Romney....not like bashers have been soooooo wrong before uponit7771 Apr 2013 #111
Oh, puhleese. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #118
Actually, he's on quite a bit. Not as often as others.. JHB Apr 2013 #51
He is usually on the more serious sunday shows AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #88
He's not on wingnut welfare. He does have to show up for a job... JHB Apr 2013 #93
K&R forestpath Apr 2013 #3
Thank you! K&R. This is madness. myrna minx Apr 2013 #4
I just don't understand... RGinNJ Apr 2013 #5
One might almost conclude that it isn't supposed to. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #6
Welcome to DU! Phlem Apr 2013 #58
Can you imagine canvassing if these cuts go through? WorseBeforeBetter Apr 2013 #64
Obama is either an idiot or a shill, or so naive as to be unbelievable. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #7
It's hard to think of another choice. Look at his cabinent and his chiefs of staff for quidance. byeya Apr 2013 #17
Of the 3 choices lark Apr 2013 #32
You know what? I think you are right. Trojan horse really fits the bill. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #52
Yep. You nailed it. n/t duffyduff Apr 2013 #109
Bingo! Fuddnik Apr 2013 #60
I ascribe to the trojan horse theory as well. NorthCarolina Apr 2013 #85
The term 'Trojan (Dem Mascot)' was floating around here, but I think it was banned.... grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #95
The more cynical explanation is Manchurian candidate. n/t duffyduff Apr 2013 #110
A shill slipped inside a Trojan Horse. n/t Ligyron Apr 2013 #154
Shill. Definitely. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #119
he is not an idiot and he is not naive Skittles Apr 2013 #68
The first two, methinks. n/t duffyduff Apr 2013 #107
I vote shill. SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #139
The Bus for Krugman is comoing in 5,4.3...........2............ Armstead Apr 2013 #8
At least we know what to get him for Christmas cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #9
Naw, Krugman has a Ferris-wheel seat... JHB Apr 2013 #53
K&R I think we know that he is not trying to impress anyone. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2013 #11
The eternal quest for David Brooks' love continues. bullwinkle428 Apr 2013 #12
Unfortunately this is all too true Cali_Democrat Apr 2013 #16
Man if I could get a holiday greeting card from Brooks I'd bust me buttons! byeya Apr 2013 #18
I am totally sick of it! This is not what I voted for last November. Harriety Apr 2013 #13
That Leadership(TM) canard gets me pissed off and it pisses off Krugman as well Cali_Democrat Apr 2013 #14
i've been reluctant to put it on paper, my thoughts aren't even clear on this, but here goes: datasuspect Apr 2013 #20
I heard a Black guy call in to a radio show and he gave a similar reason for gateley Apr 2013 #26
it isn't necessarily self-hatred datasuspect Apr 2013 #28
That was the caller's call, not mine -- but I think you've identified it better. gateley Apr 2013 #30
i understand datasuspect Apr 2013 #31
i think income level has more to do with it, just like with whites. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #49
Income -- $$ -- is always a factor. gateley Apr 2013 #54
I am part of the male white majority so I really cant speak from experience but rhett o rick Apr 2013 #86
I'm White, too, so can't speak from first-hand experience, but I wonder if it's not so much a shame gateley Apr 2013 #90
I was just going to say he is trying to impress white people. The Link Apr 2013 #33
It sucks that you have to endure the bigotry of others. blackspade Apr 2013 #37
This old Cracker agrees with you... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #81
Not just a multiracial thing idlisambar Apr 2013 #66
very interesting insight datasuspect Apr 2013 #67
Good points. avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #72
Grandma was a white bank vice president carolinayellowdog Apr 2013 #80
I've been saying this for the beginning about Obama's Presidency LovingA2andMI Apr 2013 #164
K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #21
AutoKrugmanDURec KG Apr 2013 #22
No big surprise from the 'corporate president'.... dmosh42 Apr 2013 #23
If it's all just showbiz, it's a flop. We already know he's a centrist and so do the Repubs. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #25
Krugman nails it again KennedyBrothers Apr 2013 #27
Welcome and k/r 840high Apr 2013 #62
Hammer, meet nail. blackspade Apr 2013 #29
Who? This guy and his friends: AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #36
Have we ever seen Dimon and Chuck Hagel in the same place? cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #42
Now that you mention it, ... AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #45
The president's strategy JackHughes Apr 2013 #41
Obama's proposal to cut Social Security just destroyed Democratic chances in the 2014 midterm. ieoeja Apr 2013 #47
The Republican House JackHughes Apr 2013 #50
So to avoid doing nothing, he should cut Social Security. I think I have a better idea. ieoeja Apr 2013 #55
Strategy JackHughes Apr 2013 #57
Worst. Plan. Ever. dawg Apr 2013 #94
Betraying your base, independents, seniors, the youth vote truebluegreen Apr 2013 #121
Oh Gawd! SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #140
That's the horseshit talking point from about 3 weeks ago. Marr Apr 2013 #147
that ain`t going to happen madrchsod Apr 2013 #59
Democrats and strategy JackHughes Apr 2013 #61
by proposing to decimate one of the fundamental pillars of the New Deal datasuspect Apr 2013 #73
"(Acting like a Centrist)..a posture these people take to make themselves seem noble and superior." Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #43
K&R - this man is a genius. closeupready Apr 2013 #46
he doesn't want to - says he's more effective influencing the debate where he is now BelgianMadCow Apr 2013 #96
another homerun frylock Apr 2013 #56
Remember that time GWB tried to appease the Democrats? Blue Owl Apr 2013 #65
Q: Who is Obama trying to impress? blkmusclmachine Apr 2013 #69
To take Krugman's question a step further . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #70
THAT is the question, isn't it? CTyankee Apr 2013 #99
CENTRISM!!!! ... because its so EASY! bvar22 Apr 2013 #75
Wow, I miss Paul Wellstone. MzNov Apr 2013 #78
Not true. Centrism DOES stand for something: JHB Apr 2013 #79
Not just that--those with wealth are more deserving of honor and respect. No matter what they did to Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2013 #155
Another daily thumbs up for Krugman MzNov Apr 2013 #76
President Obama thinks his policies would be considered 1980s GOPer... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #82
The only time this President and the powers that be within the party Moses2SandyKoufax Apr 2013 #100
He's trying to dismantle the very foundations of this nation. FiveGoodMen Apr 2013 #84
He's doing it to public education. The GOP in Washington aren't doing this. It's him. duffyduff Apr 2013 #108
Completely agree. FiveGoodMen Apr 2013 #114
This: ProSense Apr 2013 #89
Obama needs to put forward ways which makes republicans lose their seats Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2013 #102
And in my estimation ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #129
Okay, then. Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #141
What are you talking about ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #143
Read your own posts. Learn to follow a thread. Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #158
He nails it. vi5 Apr 2013 #103
Answer to the question: Peter J. Peterson n/t duffyduff Apr 2013 #105
Trying to impress The American people, a big group of which still believe Repubs are sane. emulatorloo Apr 2013 #113
I offer ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #128
Well, you have a thesis. I respect that. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #130
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #132
I agree with most daybranch Apr 2013 #142
One thing is for sure... Jasana Apr 2013 #145
Krugman explains things very well Babel_17 Apr 2013 #146
Hopefully the administration is now jettisoning its association with the Chained CPI Babel_17 Apr 2013 #148
I've always felt that the Pres. Teamster Jeff Apr 2013 #151
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #152
I kind of see it as Obama trying to MUSTER the grownups to stand up BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2013 #153
How is he doing that? He has offered cuts to SS. That is NOT 'mustering adults', that is catering sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #160
sorry I wasn't clear....I was talking about the last several years. Not this CPI debacle. BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2013 #161
Sorry I misunderstood you sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #162
yeah datasuspect Apr 2013 #165

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
10. Well I have been told that he isn't 'serious'. He's just trying to show the public that Republicans
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:11 PM
Apr 2013

don't like him and won't agree with him no matter what he gives them.

Or something like that.

It's a 'new' kind of politics where no one is serious about anything.

Also, he wants to get his base upset according to other reports, apparently that gives him creds with Republicans. So the more upset WE get, the more Republicans will like him.

Or something like that.

Who knows? One thing for sure, no one in DC cares about the people who elected them. So we jave to decide what to do about that.

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
15. You sum up the situation
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:21 PM
Apr 2013

in such nice and logical terms. I refer to it as playing 11 dimensional cluster fuck.

broadcaster75201

(387 posts)
39. Perfect!
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:14 PM
Apr 2013

That "three dimensional chess" thing is utter crap. Obama has caved and caved and caved. He is a reagan Conservative and pretty much a disaster.

Of course we don't expect him to get even most things he/we want. But to ultimately fight for none of them? He should have stayed in the Senate.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
131. At some point, they'll grow tired of the games and just speak the truth. Right? Right???
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:30 PM
Apr 2013

I'm tired of it all the strategerizing. Especially when nothing gets done. May as well speak the truth, that the rich should pay a boatload more taxes and this idea of "shared sacrifice" is bogus - the poor and the middle class are already "sacrificing." Who cares if the Repugs howl - it's not like they're playing ball anyway.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
19. I've heard the same things....
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:30 PM
Apr 2013

agree...

deciding what to do about it is the challenge. Sooner or later something is going to tip over.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
123. True, but out of over 200 Democratic Representatives only a very few care the way Bernie does.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:45 PM
Apr 2013

And in many ways, that is our fault. We keep electing them. We have to be the ones who choose who is going to run for office. Otherwise the Corporations direct those choices. That is where we have to begin.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
144. Goodness knows, I've tried
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:59 AM
Apr 2013

In the last election, my Congressional district had a Democratic candidate who seemed to have a chance to unseat the incumbent Republican for the first time in 46 years. But then, he was found to have been not entirely truthful about his military background, and was forced to drop out not too long before the election, leaving the incumbent with only token opposition from the Green and Libertarian parties.

And in the election before that, I voted for the more liberal-minded Bill Halter in the Arkansas primary for US Senate. Twice, in fact, as there was a run-off between him and the much more conservative Blanche Lincoln. But both Obama and Bill Clinton came to the state to campaign for Lincoln. It was almost like the Old Clinton was campaigning against the Young Clinton At any rate, after Lincoln won the somewhat controversial run-off, she was trounced by her Republican opponent, the first time that an incumbent Democratic US Senator had been defeated in an Arkansas election since Reconstruction

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
38. Maybe he should offer to resign for a deal?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:14 PM
Apr 2013

I don't think it is what should be done. But I'd be curious as to how the republicans would react.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
124. Well, that would be a better way to accomplish this goal of showing the public how Republicans
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
Apr 2013

won't agree to anything.

He could do it like this. He could tell them he wants tax increases for the wealthy, bit ones, he wants to end any subsidies to Corporations and to Oil Corps especially so that money can help pay down the defiicit. In return he will resign.

What would happen? They would refuse. But there would be no risk to vulnerable people in such an offer, only to one person's political career. Seems to me, if the goal is what we are being told it, it would be a lot more courageous to play chess with your own job, knowing you are okay financially and might even be viewed as a hero should they accept, than to gamble away other people's money, especially the most vulnerable people's money.

So it's hard to understand if exposing Republican recalcitrance is the goal, why he has can't risk something himself.

Very good suggestion. I will write to the WH and suggest it.

whathehell

(28,969 posts)
77. Why would people care if Republicans "don't like him"?..Who told him this is about HIM?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:37 PM
Apr 2013

I think he IS a republican, in all but name, anyway, which may be why he is SO

anxious to please them.

 

kardonb

(777 posts)
112. sky is falling , again....,
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:51 PM
Apr 2013

People , in the words of long -ago " Dad's Army " : Don't panic , don'y panic ! Why is it that at every opportunity the " sky is falling " crowd starts howling . Keep a cool head , please , and stay rational . Things will work out in the end . Panic and headlessness will not solve problems .

Yes , am and old lady ( 80) and on SS , but I have every confidence in our president that he will lead the way in a reasonable , rational way .

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
116. Leading in a reasonable, rational way?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:16 PM
Apr 2013

Sorry, there's nothing reasonable or rational about trying to make friends with a bunch of crazy haters. And trying is not leadership, it's pandering.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
122. Well, we were told to stay calm during the Health Care debate. We were told not to worry, he really,
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:41 PM
Apr 2013

really did want the Public Option and that the sky wasn't falling, he was just playing chess and we would have a Public Option. Instead we got exactly what he was supposedly just pretending to want.

So forgive us if we are now all too familiar with the 'chess' game. Put it this way, the Corporations seem to win all of these games and the people are not doing too great.

I know people on SS and they are barely surviving. He has no right to offer up any of THEIR money to appease Republicans, no right whatsoever, not for any reason.

They already lost two years of the COLA and now are only getting half what they should be getting.

Sorry if i'm not really interested in politicians on personal level. I judge them by the work they do FOR the people.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
157. Agreed completely
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:26 AM
Apr 2013

I just don't understand it. I think had they come out the gates bolder and proposed single payer and then negotiated down to public option 2009-2010 that there would have been a stronger and more solid Democratic party.

Instead President Obama surrounded himself with a 'team of rivals' who were mostly corporatists save the tiny few half hearted progressives that he allowed to be picked off by either Rahm Emmanuel or friggin Glenn Beck.

I am tired of this. I am tired of ceding the field to the Republicans in the name of getting something done. I am tired of every one of these bargains giving them 98% of what they want for the privelage of just barely keeping the crumbs of the programs we support.

At what point does this stop. At what point do we dig in our heels and stop placating fundamentalists, randroids, Necon warmongers, and know nothings? When does our party stop being such useless wimps?

dflprincess

(28,057 posts)
120. The Republicans will really like him when he gets the base so upset
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:24 PM
Apr 2013

none of it bothers to vote in 2014.

Then the Democratic leadership will scratch its heads trying to figure out what went wrong because it can't be anything "our" president and representatives did so they'll finally decide it's all the fault of "the left". (This would be the same left they think is so powerless and small that they don't have to pay attention to us when it comes to issues - but is big and powerful enough to cost elections. Go figure.)

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
163. As if the public
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:47 PM
Apr 2013

has not figured this out already. Does Obama understand Demographics himself? Here is how he got elected: He got elected by just 39 percent of white Americans. Just what political spectrum does he think they fall on? If not all, the majority of white Americans that voted for him are on the Left. I doubt they voted for him to cut these programs.

The rest of his coalition were 93 percent African Americans, 79 percent Hispanics and around the same percentage of Asians. That is who his Administration feels they can ignore. I doubt those Demographics voted for him to cut those programs. The Republican Party got a lot of older Americans, particularly in states like Florida to vote for them, because they trotted out Ryan's grandmother and lied about Social Security and Medicare. After the Election, they put themselves out in the open but Obama is just dying to hand the issue right back to them in 2014. Sanders knows what he is talking about. Take that issue and go into those red districts, and hang it around their necks like an Albatross. There is no way the media pundits will be able to save their asses this time. Any Republican that tried to cut those programs will be in jeopardy within states like Florida. Regardless of Boner's subtle jokes, You dam right, I would be trying to annihilate them.

 

xtraxritical

(3,576 posts)
136. Republican's don't like the raise the cap idea because it's a tax increase on business.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:22 AM
Apr 2013

It may be perfectly sensible to us to raise the cap but the RepubliCONs consider it a tax increase.

 

michigandem58

(1,044 posts)
98. Do nothing, and the trust fund will be exhausted eventually
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:43 PM
Apr 2013

and a much greater reduction in benefits will have to take place.

It's disingenuous to remark SS has nothing to do with the general fund deficit while ignoring the realities of SS itself.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
106. Baloney. Many of the baby boomers will be dead by the date of the pessimistic projections
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:30 PM
Apr 2013

Obama has swallowed the Cato Institute LIES hook, line, and sinker.

So have some people on DU.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
125. Raising employment and the cap will keep SS going for a hundred years. Without doing anything
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
Apr 2013

and under the current circumstances of high unemployment (which is the worse scenario which will improve so these are the worst possible predictions) SS will be still be fine for at least another 25 years. And when employment goes up, that will increase by a decade or more.

SS is not in trouble, SS had zero to do with the deficit. SS does not belong in these discussions at all. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT! Sorry to shout, but some people don't seem to get that. And cutting benefits will do nothing to lower the deficit. Because the SS Fund is not in trouble. It is the Federal Budget that is in trouble.

It's like this. Let's say you ran up some debts. You could figure out ways to pay them, but that might mean you can't buy some things you don't need, but you want. To solve the problem you suggest that your neighbor should get a cut in his salary. He had nothing to do with your accumulation of debts. What would be the logic in that?

Well that is what this is. The Government spent money it didn't have on Wars and on Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and on Wall St corruption bailouts etc. They could pay the debts but that would mean ending all the fun they are having with their wars and tax breaks. So they point 'over there' to a fund that is not theirs and has nothing to do with the problem they created. And that will not solve the problem even if cuts are made to the beneficiaries.

It's criminal frankly, a fraud, a con job. And we generally depend on Democrats to prevent these fraudulent attacks on SS. We sure don't expect Democrats to perpetrate them.

 

michigandem58

(1,044 posts)
150. You and I would raise the cap tomorrow
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:28 AM
Apr 2013

and I'd probably tweak each share up 1% and strengthen the program.

But getting back to reality, there's a strong repug presence in Congress. They are loathe to raise taxes in any way. The President's proposal is a compromise. And you're to have those until 1)Democrats dominate Congress and own the White House or 2) you are content to never do anything. You can't insist it be all your way and expect anything to happen.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
156. Well, there have always been Republicans in Congress. They have different ideas about issues. That
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

is why we work so hard to keep them from winning.

A golden opportunity to raise taxes on the wealthy came when all president had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire. He did not have to do anything at all. Certainly he did not have to bargain with SS.

But regardless, whether taxes are raised or not, it has nothing to do with SS. The Fed Govt fund has nothing to do with SS.

So, if it is a choice between raising taxes now and cutting SS, then first take care of SS. He has four years to deal with taxes and an election coming up. There is no rush, but cutting SS will have lasting effects on millions of Americans and will do more than that, it opens the door to the never before idea that Democrats can now be bribed into dipping into that fund, which none of them has a right to do. That is the people's fund.

Let's wait on increasing taxes, let's show the American people we are the party who will protect their fund, get a majority in 2014 and then deal with taxes. Meantime put their backs against the wall, focus on raising the cap, which would be a hugely popular issue for 2014 and if anything raise SS benefits which actually would help the economy.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
149. Basically.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:13 AM
Apr 2013

When it's Gen X's turn to retire, we'll see the reversal of what's coming up, because Gen X is a demographic divot.

And basing projections out to 2034 based on current economic performance is silly.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
159. Uhm...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:31 AM
Apr 2013

This is a bit inaccurate and it is a standard talking point based on "conventional wisdom." Social Security has been and is solvent for decades. As others have said merely raise the income cap for collection.

The real reason they want to cut benefits is to draw out the repayments to social security which is where a decent sized chunk of our deficit is owed to. not borrowing from it for discretionary spending on wars and taxcuts for the wealthy would be a good idea.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
2. This is why the liberalmedia don't invite Krugman on their pundit shows
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:36 PM
Apr 2013

He hits way too close to home for them.

What always amazes me is that somebody can be as smart as Obama is, yet buy into the beltway bullshit that both sides are equally at fault for the sad state of our economy.

Vinnie From Indy

(10,820 posts)
34. Occams razor?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:10 PM
Apr 2013

Obama is very smart and so are the people around him. The answer to this riddle is that Obama is not a liberal Democrat and obstructionism provides excellent cover for the incremental dismantling of the FDR legacy.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
92. Agreed PBO is the compromised President. Why would the GOP run him when they can let the Democratic
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

Party do it for them. The Banksters have their man in the WH to ensure their criminal enterprises continue uninterupted.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
118. Oh, puhleese.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:19 PM
Apr 2013

That's a straw man argument. No one here is suggesting voting for Romney, but better-than-bat-shit-insane just isn't good enough.

And your concern is noted.

JHB

(37,132 posts)
51. Actually, he's on quite a bit. Not as often as others..
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

...and he's not always at his best in those formats (though he's gotten better over time), but he DOES get on the talking head shows. And has the platform of a NYTimes column, which is the thing that keeps him from being sidelined completely.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
88. He is usually on the more serious sunday shows
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:10 PM
Apr 2013

Rather than the daily rock-em sock-em pundit shows

JHB

(37,132 posts)
93. He's not on wingnut welfare. He does have to show up for a job...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

...that doesn't involve showing up on pundit shows.

WorseBeforeBetter

(11,441 posts)
64. Can you imagine canvassing if these cuts go through?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:42 PM
Apr 2013

That'll be *great* fun. "Vote for Democrats, the party that offers up cuts to Social Security!"

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
17. It's hard to think of another choice. Look at his cabinent and his chiefs of staff for quidance.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:22 PM
Apr 2013

lark

(23,003 posts)
32. Of the 3 choices
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:09 PM
Apr 2013

I vote for shill. He didn't express any of this crap in either campaign, and rather took the opposite stance, so this isn't being naive or an idiot. I did think of a 4th alternative - a trojan horse. That appears to fit all the facts.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
85. I ascribe to the trojan horse theory as well.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:57 PM
Apr 2013

given the campaign rhetoric vs actions as you so aptly pointed out.

JHB

(37,132 posts)
53. Naw, Krugman has a Ferris-wheel seat...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:04 PM
Apr 2013

On the bus, under the bus, on the bus, under the bus, on the bus, under... etc., depending on his degree of criticism.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
11. K&R I think we know that he is not trying to impress anyone.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:17 PM
Apr 2013

He is setting us up for the next assault. One of the reasons I have so enjoyed the unwittingly ironic chess and boxing metaphors that are so well-loved here.

Anyone that has ever wondered how the republicans keep getting their dupes to vote against their own interests should step back and objectively examine this administration's actions. Ignore what they say, watch what they do (and my G-Grandmother was saying it decades before Randi was even born).

bullwinkle428

(20,627 posts)
12. The eternal quest for David Brooks' love continues.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:19 PM
Apr 2013

Last Friday on NPR, Brooks seemed really really excited at the fact that Obama did something that pissed liberals off, so he's got that going for him!

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
14. That Leadership(TM) canard gets me pissed off and it pisses off Krugman as well
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:20 PM
Apr 2013

The pundits blame Obama for failing to lead the Republicans to compromise. Exactly how is that supposed to work?

What can he do?

Nothing.

Unfortunately Obama still doesn't see this that's why he put out that ridiculous budget.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
20. i've been reluctant to put it on paper, my thoughts aren't even clear on this, but here goes:
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:31 PM
Apr 2013

coming from a mixed racial background, you often find overcompensation on trying to get approval from others, especially from the dominant race in your culture.

for instance, my mother is white, my father wasn't.

i was ashamed of the "dark Other" part of myself for quite a long time. it was not acceptable to the dominant white culture all around me. as a child, i was teased for the "dark Other" part of myself.

i did everything possible to excel academically, to speak properly, and to disregard anything related to the culture that my father's ancestry entailed.

so you end up becoming a people pleaser, the exception to the rule, the "good" black or brown person that your white friends know.

sometimes good enough to eat with your friends at their family's house, but not good enough to date a white sister or a white daughter.

i've since come to understand and embrace the other half of my background and I've realized that many of my actions were informed by the process of being acculturated in a racist culture.

an old man once told me: "you can hang out in a garage all you want, it ain't gonna make you a buick."

gateley

(62,683 posts)
26. I heard a Black guy call in to a radio show and he gave a similar reason for
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:02 PM
Apr 2013

why Blacks (and other non-Whites) become members of the Republican party. (I think the topic at the time is WTF is up with Allen West?) He called it self-hatred. He didn't specify mixed races, but that makes sense, too. This county's racism has done so much to harm people, it's heartbreaking.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
28. it isn't necessarily self-hatred
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:03 PM
Apr 2013

that has something to do with it, but it's more shame-based.

and with mixed race people (if you appear white enough), the identity struggle is interesting to say the least.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
86. I am part of the male white majority so I really cant speak from experience but
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:06 PM
Apr 2013

that doesnt slow me down. I have noticed a phenomena that some gay males are Republican and exude hatred for gays because they are in a state of denial. IMO they think that if they exude enough gay hatred then they will become not-gay. I think the same thing can happen to non-whites. For example, I bet if you take Bobby Jindal to a Republican bash and give him a couple of Scotchs, and ask him if he is white, he will say "sure".

gateley

(62,683 posts)
90. I'm White, too, so can't speak from first-hand experience, but I wonder if it's not so much a shame
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:16 PM
Apr 2013

type thing as it may be just the need to be accepted. That's a powerful drive in all of us.

I can see the gay thing -- look how many vehement anti-gay Republican representatives there are who got "caught" being gay. Another shameful example of how we treat our fellow Americans.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
37. It sucks that you have to endure the bigotry of others.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:11 PM
Apr 2013

If it makes you feel any better, as a white guy with kids, I couldn't care less what color, creed, or sex my kids fall for.
As long as the folks that they are interested in treat them with respect and love, they have my approval.
Notice I said color. There is no such thing as race. It is a social construct, created by racists, to divide people for the benefit of those in power.
Honestly, the sooner our culture is blended, the better.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
81. This old Cracker agrees with you...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:30 PM
Apr 2013

At a family reunion a few years back, there were at least two black/white marriages in our main family lines, both within the last 30 years. One was African-American, the other Jamaican-American. Those and the Latino knots as well.

My Mom and 2 sisters account for over 280 years between them, and the stories about the Klan when they grew up were unsettling.
Hurston had it right: The future face of America can be found in Florida, esp. S. Florida. And she said that 80+ years ago.

idlisambar

(928 posts)
66. Not just a multiracial thing
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:28 PM
Apr 2013

Successful people from humble beginnings can often fall into this trap. They can be too content in seeking approval from other elites. As newcomers they want to be taken seriously and the easiest path is imitation. As a consequence, they will too easily accept to the tribe's patterns of thought -- its conventional wisdom.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama fit this description to a certain extent. For Bill Clinton it rises to the level of a fatal flaw in my opinion -- his need for approval is off the charts. As such, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are unlikely to be reformers for the big issues, the ones that challenge the power structure.

It's ironic, but the most accomplished reformers will often come from the elite class. They do not put their own class on a pedestal and thus are more ready and able to challenge it. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR fit this mold of the elite populist. Of course, not every member of elite is a likely to be a reformer, an elite with an elitist outlook will tend to do the opposite of reform and try to strengthen the elite's hold (see George W Bush).

carolinayellowdog

(3,247 posts)
80. Grandma was a white bank vice president
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:11 PM
Apr 2013

This probably explains more about his basic values than his hippie mom or Kenyan dad.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
164. I've been saying this for the beginning about Obama's Presidency
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:14 AM
Apr 2013

Glad someone else from a Mixed-Race background expressed this perfectly!

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
23. No big surprise from the 'corporate president'....
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:42 PM
Apr 2013

No big prosecutions of Wall St, no big effort to make the billionaires pay their fair share, but timing is right to zing the seniors and vets. Almost as he were a Republican!

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
25. If it's all just showbiz, it's a flop. We already know he's a centrist and so do the Repubs.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:02 PM
Apr 2013

And, they use it to their advantage knowing that he's going to try and make deals with them at the expense of the people he allegedly represents.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
42. Have we ever seen Dimon and Chuck Hagel in the same place?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:16 PM
Apr 2013

I looked at that picture and thought it was Hagel dressed as Superman's father for Halloween

JackHughes

(166 posts)
41. The president's strategy
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:15 PM
Apr 2013

One can hope that, since radical House Republicans will never accept ANY proposal that includes ANY tax increases of ANY kind, the president's budget proposal is really just a strategy aimed at convincing voters to reject Tea Party absolutism and elect Democratic congressional majorities in 2014.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
47. Obama's proposal to cut Social Security just destroyed Democratic chances in the 2014 midterm.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apr 2013

The Yahoo! boards are full of people furious that Democrats are trying to cut Social Security. I try to point out that this is Obama alone, but he is viewed as the head of the Party. His concrete coattails on this debacle is going to hand the Senate over to the Republicans.

The only chance Democrats have at this point is to disavow Obama. Kick him out of the Party. Given that he did not invite a single Democratic legislature to the White House when negotiating the tax holiday extension with Republicans in 2010, and again when negotiating the tax cut in 2012 with Republicans, kicking him out of the Party at this point would simply be acknowledging the truth.

Obama is a Republican.


JackHughes

(166 posts)
50. The Republican House
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:59 PM
Apr 2013

It should be noted that Obama can do nothing with a Republican-dominated House.

Unfortunately, he can't rule by presidential decree.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
55. So to avoid doing nothing, he should cut Social Security. I think I have a better idea.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:10 PM
Apr 2013

[font size=5]Do fucking nothing!!![/font]


JackHughes

(166 posts)
57. Strategy
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:17 PM
Apr 2013

The point is: The Republicans will not accept the proposal because it includes tax hikes so there will be no cuts to Social Security.

It's all political theater designed to win back the House.

dawg

(10,610 posts)
94. Worst. Plan. Ever.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:22 PM
Apr 2013

"Vote Dem in 2014. President Obama can't do anything because of the Republican House. See, he even tried to cut Social Security benefits and those mean old Republicans blocked him. We need to vote them out!"

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
121. Betraying your base, independents, seniors, the youth vote
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:27 PM
Apr 2013

is designed to win back the House?

That'll work.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
147. That's the horseshit talking point from about 3 weeks ago.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:53 AM
Apr 2013

I believe the horseshit has been updated since then.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
59. that ain`t going to happen
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:21 PM
Apr 2013

there won`t be a democratic house because obama does`t really care if he has one.

JackHughes

(166 posts)
61. Democrats and strategy
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:31 PM
Apr 2013

Democrats could and should be able to take control of the House considering their deranged opposition, but the Democrats are a political party in name only.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
73. by proposing to decimate one of the fundamental pillars of the New Deal
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:14 PM
Apr 2013

that most Democrats and many Republicans have held as sacrosanct for more than a few years.

yeah, i buy that.

wanna look at some bridges i have for sale? one of them is in New York.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
43. "(Acting like a Centrist)..a posture these people take to make themselves seem noble and superior."
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:27 PM
Apr 2013

We see plenty of that here as well.

The Democrats suffer from a major religion problem. It's an invisible deity that looks on in judgement over how well everyone is getting along. This religion states that Democrats treating the Republicans as the enemy is a sin but it's okay for Republicans to call on their supporters to kill Democrats.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
96. he doesn't want to - says he's more effective influencing the debate where he is now
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:35 PM
Apr 2013

and that the lacks the organisational skills (like, keeping papers in order and stuff) to do a job like that. There was a campaign to have him on Treasury and he said he was flattered, but no thanks.

I don't actually think he's a genius, since his reasoning stays well within the system, where obviously (politics aside) the system is broken and we need people that can think outside of it, like Steve Keene or Bernaerd Lietaer.

That doesn't keep me from liking his activism very much. If there's any squeak from Serious Persons here about easing the insane austerity in Europe, they reference Krugman.

markpkessinger

(8,381 posts)
70. To take Krugman's question a step further . . .
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:07 PM
Apr 2013

Let's suppose the President proves whatever point he is trying to prove to whomever he is trying to prove it. Say he ultimately gets the nod of the purported "centrist" pundits of the Washington Post editorial page. What then? Does anybody seriously think that will move the current crop of congressional Republicans? I mean, what's the end game here, assuming he proves his point?

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
99. THAT is the question, isn't it?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:54 PM
Apr 2013

They will basically "bank it" and demand more. Period.

The end game is, as I see it, Obama loses his base and loses with the Repugs.

Did nobody game this out for him in the White House?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
75. CENTRISM!!!! ... because its so EASY!
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

[font size=3]You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO![/font]



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font]
[/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center]
[/font]

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,760 posts)
155. Not just that--those with wealth are more deserving of honor and respect. No matter what they did to
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:00 AM
Apr 2013

get it.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
82. President Obama thinks his policies would be considered 1980s GOPer...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:36 PM
Apr 2013

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080#.UWXoT6KG1g8

Not the way I would have responded to attacks of being a "socialist." But Obama wants nothing to do with the "left," so he makes the most comfortable argument, I suppose.

Moses2SandyKoufax

(1,290 posts)
100. The only time this President and the powers that be within the party
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:59 PM
Apr 2013

want anything to do with the left is when the current year ends in: 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8. Even then, they only seem to want our money, time, and vote.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
84. He's trying to dismantle the very foundations of this nation.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:45 PM
Apr 2013

That will impress the people who really put him in power.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
108. He's doing it to public education. The GOP in Washington aren't doing this. It's him.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:32 PM
Apr 2013

Neoliberalism is what he subscribes to. It is what he IS.

It has nothing to do with traditional Democratic Party ideals.

The party has been hijacked by puppets backed by billionaire interests and Wall Street gangsters.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
89. This:
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013
Obama’s budget will garner faint praise at best, quickly followed by denunciations of the president for not supplying the Leadership (TM) to make Republicans compromise — which means that he’s just as much at fault as they are, see?


Yeah, Republicans aren't interested. Their only goal is political gain, block and blame.

Greg Sargent:

But now that Obama has included those things in his budget, Republicans are not only still unwilling to contemplate new revenue; the chair of the NRCC is signaling that Republicans will us it to attack Democrats for “coming back at seniors,” just as they did in 2012 and 2010. In other words, even as Republican Congressional leaders continue to claim we need to cut entitlements, the chair of the committee charged with electing Republicans to the House is simultaneously making it all the harder for this to actually get done by signaling that Dems will pay a heavy political price if they agree to actually do anything along those lines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/10/fiscal-frauds/


 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
129. And in my estimation ...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:20 PM
Apr 2013

He is doing just that.

What do you thin would be the effect of President Obama (or maybe a Democratic legislator) saying:


Okay, Mr./Ms. gop Legislator ... Here's what we can do ... I'll drop the Chained CPI, no one seems to like that approach, even apparently the gop that is demanding cuts to "entitlements" (a win for the American people) and I will reduce my revenue ask by half what the CCPI would have realized (a win for the you, the gop).


Now ... where does the gop go ... and not cement their "unwillingness to compromise" monicker with the solid plurarity of gop and independent voters (a solid majority when taken as a whole) that poll as having the gop being unwilling to compromise and President Obama (and Democrats being willing to compromise).

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering as a result of 2010), we need those groups to either stay home, vote 3rd-Party, or vote Democratic. In my estimation ... It 's all about 2014.

Jakes Progress

(11,121 posts)
141. Okay, then.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:10 AM
Apr 2013

Why doesn't he offer to overturn all the civil rights legislation. He could offer to re-instate all the jim-crow laws. He could offer to start banning inter-racial marriage. Then he could put forth an amendment to repeal the 14th amendment along with offering to overturn Brown vs. the board of Education.

That would really show those republicans. I guess that would result in a huge victory for Democrats at the mid-terms.

Your logic is just silly.

Jakes Progress

(11,121 posts)
158. Read your own posts. Learn to follow a thread.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:29 AM
Apr 2013

In you "estimation" Obama was going to win the mid terms by proposing right wing positions. If you don't mind offering up the welfare of the elderly, you shouldn't mind offering up civil rights.

That is you your position is . . . uh . . . silly.

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
103. He nails it.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:16 PM
Apr 2013

How fucking pathetic is it to think that a Democratic president is the one firing the opening shot at destroying the New Deal social safety net, pretty much so he can get the approval of a group of at most 2 dozen, out of touch, pathetic "journalists". That's really the only people who are going to be impressed by any of this or think it's a good thing, and it's clearly the group whose approval means the most to Obama.

What a sad, pathetic state of affairs.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
113. Trying to impress The American people, a big group of which still believe Repubs are sane.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:56 PM
Apr 2013

"Public opinion" et cetera.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
128. I offer ...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:16 PM
Apr 2013

that President Obama is NOT trying to "impress" anyone; rather, he is trying to flip the House in 2014 by showing the gop for what they are.

But he's not talking to the media; but rather, the the solid plurarity of gop and independent voters (a solid majority when taken as a whole) that poll as having the gop being unwilling to compromise and President Obama (and Democrats being willing to compromise).

These are the groups that (because of the gerrymander after 2010) we need to either: vote Democratic, vote 3rd-Party or stay at home.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
130. Well, you have a thesis. I respect that.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:24 PM
Apr 2013

And perhaps you are right.

And perhaps it will work.

I don't think so, but I enjoyed reading your comment.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
132. Yes ...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:32 PM
Apr 2013

that is my thesis ... I support with, look at what President Obama is doing, he's been making a big show of talking directly to the gop rank and file and the American people.

daybranch

(1,309 posts)
142. I agree with most
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:20 AM
Apr 2013

of this article. However it causes a puzzle in my mind- If both Obama and the republican leadership agree on cuts to social security that will definitely hurt those up for reelection. There is no more sacred cow to democrats and progressives and to rank and file republicans than continuance of social security as an earned payback. So Obama has succeeded in angering progressives and democrats and many many republicans by proposing what republican leadership wants. He has united huge numbers of people and while so many see it as a dumb move, maybe it is politics. We know that progressives are for the first time in many years united by this threat to social security. We know that more conservative democrats are joining them to oppose this. Now we know that many many more republicans than voted for Obama also truly oppose them and join with democrats in doing so. We worry that by proposing such a thing as chained CPI, Obama has lost the 2014 election by revealing democrats as less populous than currently believed and willing to endanger social security.
But a closer look might reveal what may be happening. Obama is not democrats. Obama is not progressives. Obama is not even running for reelection. Obama does not control the choices democrats in Congress make. He does not control what decisions republican make. What he does in many cases is reveal who is who.
Right now democrats and every other legislator who is not willing to support social security are getting another one of the cuts in a death of a thousand cuts. Grayson is yelling primary dems who do not vote for social security. Bernie Sanders is organizing dems and collecting signatures in the millions. Activist groups of progressives like move on and DFA, etc. are collecting money and membership. Even the health care activists has come on board this ancillary issue. It is up to dems how they vote. The President has taken the heat but he has united the country in this quest far better than he did to win reelection. The dems will never allow this budget to pass and by voting it down will cement their standing as being for the people, this will enhance their standing everywhere across the country. I recognize John Boehner has quickly rejected thisand well he should. It is a poison budget that reveals with its acceptance just how despicable republican leadership is. republicans would not propose this unless they have the majority in both chambers of Congress and a republican President to sign it.
As the President said , it ain't about him, and we have to make him do what we want. It is about us. I thank the President for making that transparent and I want to thank you for working already to help us elect more Progressives in 2014.

Jasana

(490 posts)
145. One thing is for sure...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:10 AM
Apr 2013

He is most surely not impressing me with this garbage and I voted for him twice. I really hope his "leadership" of the democrat party does not cause us to lose the next mid-terms.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
146. Krugman explains things very well
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:24 AM
Apr 2013

These negotiations have become a habit, one the administrations bitter foes have adapted to, and what once had an effect is now just twisted and thrown back.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
148. Hopefully the administration is now jettisoning its association with the Chained CPI
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:08 AM
Apr 2013
When asked Friday if chained CPI represents a tax hike on the middle class, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "I'm not disputing that."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/grover-norquist-chained-cpi_n_3052646.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, leader of the organization, criticized the policy via Twitter on Wednesday. "Chained CPI is a very large tax hike over time," Norquist wrote. "Hence Democrat interest in same."


No one wants to own it now, it looks like, perhaps, not after the loud ruckus pointing to its negative effects, etc.

Though we might have to live with a false residual public perception of being the party that wants to cut the middle classes SS benefits so as to feed government coffers/spend on other people.

And for the record, that isn't true, entitlement reform has been a big Republican talking point for a while.

So maybe we'll get what we want, Chained CPI disavowed, though in the end our credentials of being the defenders of SS were not burnished.

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
153. I kind of see it as Obama trying to MUSTER the grownups to stand up
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:52 AM
Apr 2013

And support what's right, by providing an example, rather than seeking approval......

Well, that's immaterial.

Good article.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
160. How is he doing that? He has offered cuts to SS. That is NOT 'mustering adults', that is catering
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:37 AM
Apr 2013

to incredibly bad behavior, something no Democrat has done so publicly before. When I have to deal with children who are behaving badly, screaming and throwing temper tantrums demanding someone else's toys, the very last thing I would do is to take away that other child's toy and hand it to the temper-tantrum-throwing, bullying, out-of-control child. That wouldn't be good for the child who owns the toy, and it certainly isn't good for the one who thinks that screaming and bullying is the way to get what you want.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
161. sorry I wasn't clear....I was talking about the last several years. Not this CPI debacle.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:04 PM
Apr 2013

Totally agree-- should have stopped catering to the schoolyard bullies a long time ago.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
165. yeah
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:36 AM
Apr 2013

they did stand up.

when they elected him into office based on his words which turned out to be lies.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman on Who is Obama t...