Here is the problem, statements like this: "I didn't realize we voted for a Republican President"

[ProSense]

Such statements are based on an inaccurate reading of the President's position.

First, the President's position on stimulus spending isn't unknown:

• Short-term stimulus/long-term deficit reduction: This is where Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman and most of the White House's economic team sits. This group sees a massive gap between what the country could be producing and what it is producing, near-10 percent unemployment, and record-low interest rates that both suggest deficits are not worrying the market and make borrowing remarkably cheap for the federal government. Stimulus is not only necessary, but feasible, and both fiscal and monetary tools should be employed.

As for the impact on the deficit, it's negligible, and temporary. The long-term deficit is what we need to worry about, and it's largely driven by health-care spending and demographics. It needs to be dealt with -- and the country took the first steps when we passed a health-care reform bill that included an excise tax on high-value health insurance and an independent commission to cut Medicare spending -- but it shouldn't be confused with stimulus.

The problem:

Exhibit A, this video: Cenk Uygur and Ryan Grim Discuss President Obama's Conservative Tendencies

Exhibit B, this Daily Kos diary: What the hell is the Obama White House doing?

This country wants the government to SPEND MONEY FOR JOB CREATION, but the Obama White House is on the side of Republicans for cuts.

It offers supporting evidence from The Dylan Ratigan Show: "Obama to take the country in a conservative direction?"

Comment in response provides "What the President said"

Get out of my way, GOP.

President Obama slammed Republicans Saturday, attacking them for not moving fast enough on an economic recovery bill.

The president says the bill would extend unemployment benefits and enact tax credits for first-time homeowners.

"Republican leadership in the Senate won't even allow this legislation to come up for a vote," Obama said in his weekly address.

The bills Obama referred to didn’t win enough Senate support.

The president also smacked the GOP for not approving his nominees for federal positions faster. At present, 136 nominees await confirmation.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/19/2010-06-19_president_obama_slams

Response by author of the piece: "And who saw that?"

You can't claim the President is the problem when you yourself haven't been paying attention.

:rofl:

[stray cat]

1. I was pretty sure who I was voting for - but I paid attention to words

[SkyDaddy7]

17. Exactly!

Obama also made it very clear it would take small steps that would take time! However, 18 months was all he got and in many cases not even a year!

I know I got the President i voted for! Not perfect but there will NEVER be a perfect candidate!

[ProSense]

2. Obviously, there is some discomfort with

"What the President said"

:rofl:

[ProSense]

3. No other comments? n/t

[jgraz]

4. Thanks for the little blue link to Cenk's video -- it's fucking brilliant.

Good luck refuting even one point mentioned therein. :hi:

[ProSense]

5. "the little blue link "

Oh, you're one of them.

[jgraz]

6. Which "them" would that be?

Feel free to post a little blue link to "them". :popcorn:

[spoony]

14. Yes I hadn't seen that.

Very good stuff.

[karynnj]

21. Actually it's very easy

He lists as one point on Reagan, that he raised taxes. Now, I think you remember the pattern of what he did on taxes.

So, was what Reagan actually did on taxes in keeping with the right - or as Cenk implies was it a sign of him being liberal?

It is true that Reagan raised taxes, but the greater truth is that he shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. One way this was done was by increasing the FICA taxes to deal with the imminent retirement of the baby boomers - and then adding the SS surplus to the general budget, which would have otherwise had even bigger deficits due to the cuts in income tax, especially for the wealthy. Now, people like Greenspan, who pushed for that increase to "keep SS solvent" argue that the money spent is "gone". It is inconceivable that he did not see this would happen - so he really replaced money from a progressive tax (income) with a more regressive one (FICA). This was, of course, the insult to the injury of now telling people, that even though they paid higher SS and Medicare taxes since the mid 1980s to insure the money would be there, that money is not there and a commission will look at how to "fix" that.

That sounds far more right wing than left.

Additionally, do like the characterization of "cut and run" and the assignment of it to the left? It is a RW frame for not staying forever and expanding out neo-con adventures.

[jgraz]

22. You probably want to avoid using Social Security as a counter-example.

Especially since Obama's Deficit Commission seems intent on continuing Reagan's work in this area.

[karynnj]

23. I was not defending what Obama's commission MIGHT do in the future

I was simply pointing out that Reagan's tax policies were absolutely in keeping with conservative (in fact, Norquist ideology). That does contradict Cenk's article.

One very unpleasant thing is that to some degree Greenspan might be right. The money spent as part of the general budget over the last 25 or so years really is not being "saved" somewhere. It is also true that sometime soon, the SS surplus (in annual terms) will become a deficit. Rather than helping the general budget, it will pull from the budget. I realize now that the Moynihan commission really was a devise that allowed the consequences of Reagan's fiscal recklessness to be hidden. It is also disturbing to me that it almost certainly was predicable. It is not lost on me that the Democrats did not correct the accounting when we took power in 1992.

It does bring back echoes of the 2000 campaign - and its mention of the lock box. Instead, Greenspan argued for the huge Bush tax cuts. The real problem now is what do we do. The first step, I think, has to be a truthful accounting of where we are. The second should likely be not renewing the ALWAYS unaffordable Bush tax cuts - especially estate taxes and on the wealthy.

I hope the Democrats are smart enough to let the tax cuts expire - if only because when they are expired, they will have a vested interest in restoring some of them. The default is that they are gone. (Even in the lame duck session, we still have more leverage as, for once, the Republicans want a bill passed more than we do.)

I do suspect that November/December will be an extremely contentious time - and few will be happy with how things play out as supporters of both sides likely do not realize that even the status quo is extremely not sustainable. (It still is incredible that the Democrats let the Republicans pass a set of tax cuts that became ever deeper and then expired - without at least making people more aware of the fact that they were not viable long term and teh Republicans would likely act (in 2011) as if anything above the then lowest rates of 2010 was unfair.

That this will be happening at a time of a shaky economy and high inflation makes it a nightmare.

[vaberella]

7. I can't move the O up.

As I've said before. You have one set of people who think Obama can do anything he wishes when it comes to the betterment of the people and you have the other set who think he's done way too much. In the end, he's a damned if you do or damned if you don't. Many on DU you say he's a Republican and Republican says he's a spending fiend liberal. Both are loud and both at this point are ignored by me.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That's how it works around here.

If you have an OP supportive of this President,
it's going down.

School's out....that's why.

[Forkboy]

15. Funny, I've posted positive threads about Obama that got recced up.

Maybe it's the approach.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bornskeptic]

9. The idea that immediate stimulus spending might be compatible with long-term deficit reduction

is too complicated for the typical Republican, or his typical uber-progressive cousin.
Cenk Uygur is a Glenn Beck clone. Each makes a living making claims that even he cannot be stupid enough to believe.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Who are these uber-progressives howling against stimulative spending?

Who is that doesn't get that priming the pump and keeping the home fires burning doesn't keep the tax revenue up and has a domino effect that results in lower long term deficits?

It's investment. That does not mean one dollar spent is not always equal. Proper targeting of those dollars gives more bang. Food stamps, UI, and infrastructure have more impact than tax cuts and blowing up folks overseas.

Lame dig to establish a lamer false equivalency frame.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Well I'm always fascinated by the diametrically opposite epithets thrown at Pres Obama.

The only thing the ideological labeling has in common it seems is the intent to denigrate and disparage. It's all really just a dog and pony show where truth and reality don't really matter.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opihimoimoi]

16. MASSIVE PSYOPS to hurt P Obama regain control...money no object, ..... Rush got $400 MILLION

[NJmaverick]

18. This is very true, so here's a kick and rec

[brentspeak]

19. Where do you find the time? n/t

[IOKIYAL]

20. Obama's A Republican? - MORE LIKE HIM PLEASE!!!

[GeorgeGist]

24. Greed is Good ...

:rofl:

[GeorgeGist]

25. Greed is Good ...

:rofl: