Being smart on the economy is not the same as being politically smart.

[ProSense]

Lacking All Conviction

Atrios:

So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

I have no idea what they’re thinking. It would be one thing if polls suggested a tolerable outcome in November, so that playing it safe could possibly make sense as a political strategy. But that’s not the way it is; and it’s hard to see what possible motivation there is for pulling punches. Going for your opponent’s capillaries when you yourself are bleeding heavily?

Yeah, that would work.

Imagine the Republican response: Democrats have the majority now.

In fact, that is exactly what Democrats did on jobless benefits: call out the Republicans for being obstructionists. As a result, even some critics on the left were pinning the failure to pass a bill on Democrats. In the end to get a package passed, it had to be compromised, appeasing blue dog Democrats and Republicans.

What Krugman and Atrios don't seem to realize is that in the current make up of Congress, two Republicans can grind legislation to a halt in the Senate.

It's the same reason they conveniently forget how the stimulus passed. The concept of $1.2 trillion became $900 billion after the initial debate. By the time the votes were there for it to pass, it had been reduced to $787 billion to attract Republican support.

No matter how much the critics keep pointing out their preference for bills that are big enough or go far enough, legislation still needs Republican votes to pass in the Senate.

The strategy Atrios outlines may or may not help retain control of Congress, but it certainly does nothing for attracting the two Republican votes. Look at Maine, there was a huge campaign targeting Snowe and Collins on a public opion and they still voted against the bill.

I'm not seeing how passing nothing and then blaming Republicans is a winning strategy.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Small successes will do more to help us retain congress that big failures...

If we fail in getting a bill through, Republicans sell that as a gigantic success.

If we get something small through, Republicans sell that as holding the line.

Ultimatly, this is not about winning and losing in November. It is about governing for the benefit of the Aerican people. Standing on principals and allowing Repuplicans to freeze the government is like pissing your pants in a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling, but nobody notices. Running one big bill to failure after another only plays into Republican hands.

[Exilednight]

4. Not true. I am more willing to vote for a candidate who at least put their heart into it ..........

and failed, than a candidate who will take what they can get and call it a political victory.

People are smarter than what politicians, and some on this board, give them credit for.

[ProSense]

5. Right, that's why when Harry Reid stood his ground on unemployment benefits

and time went by, Democrats became more popular?

[Exilednight]

6. It was the first time Harry stood his ground on anything. Obama doesn't pressure him ..........

enough. And let's be honest, the only reason Reid held his ground is because Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and wants to win re-election. His opponent is against extending benefits, so this is political maneuvering.

And let's really be honest, Democrats lose popularity because our gifted speaking leader in the White House can't put together a message that is consistent and has capitulated on too many pieces of important legislation. Repugs came out with the "death panel" meme and team Obama failed to find a counter message.

What will the excuse be when Social Security is cut or the retirement age is raised? Congress did it? That's going to be a sad excuse when the President has the power of veto.

[ProSense]

8. A series of failed bills is not a winning strategy

"And let's really be honest, Democrats lose popularity because our gifted speaking leader in the White House can't put together a message that is consistent and has capitulated on too many pieces of important legislation."

Yet the health care law is rapidly becoming more popular.

[Exilednight]

13. That's only because not everyone knows what is in it and the falsehoods that are ..............

being spewed about how great it is.

The biggest problem with HCR is that it does nothing to bring down cost. Cost is THE number one problem with health care.

And here's another one, 18 states have decided to not run high risk insurance pools for those with pre-existing conditions.

Easier access? not necessarily.

More affordable? Definitely not.

[ProSense]

15. "That's only because not everyone knows what is in it "

So before it passed and began to be implemented, more people opposed it because they had no idea what was in it, but now that it's being implemented, more people support it because they have no idea what's in it?

Oh brother.

[Exilednight]

17. No. Here's the problem ............

The bill is front loaded with all the "good parts" being put in place first, but as time goes by you will see a backlash, as per my example with unions above and the 18 states that are not implementing parts of the plan because Obama gave them a choice in the matter.

[ProSense]

19. "The bill is front loaded with all the "good parts" being put in place first"

I thought you said they support it because they don't know what's in it?

Now you're saying it's because they're being exposed to the good parts?

[Exilednight]

22. That's what I said. Let me put it to you like this ..........

If I have three bags on the table, and I tell you that you will receive $1 million dollars over the course of the three bags, but you have to take all three to get what you want. But you're not exactly sure what is in each bag.

The first bag I give you contains $600,000.00. You get this 600K and run around and tell all your friends that I just gave you 600k, chances are that my popularity will rise.

Next year, I give you bag with 200k, and a note saying that you me 100k. Still not bad, you're ahead 100k this time around.

The following year I give you a bag with the remaining 200k, but there's a note inside that you me 500k. Now you're down 300k.

That's basically how this bill works. Several bags with mixed products that get rolled out over time, but many people don't know what is in each bag until it gets rolled out. All the "good stuff" is in the early bags, but the shitty stuff is down the line.

[ProSense]

30. So

when the ban of dropping adults based on pre-existing condition and the exchanges are up and running in 2014, people will be less satified than they are now?

Really?

[Exilednight]

33. Yes, and here is why.......

For some, those with pre-existing conditions that don't fall through the cracks, there will be some relief.

In the long run, this tax is going to hurt many of the middle-class union workers.

Also, this bill does nothing to address the core issue - the rising cost of health-care.

[ProSense]

34. What exactly are you arguing?

"For some, those with pre-existing conditions that don't fall through the cracks, there will be some relief."

You claimed the bill is front loaded with the good parts. Isn't the provision that bans insurance companies from dropping children based on a pre-existing condition among the "good parts"?

If so, why would it be good now and bad when expanded to adults?

[Exilednight]

36. The same thing I have been arguing, but you refuse to address ........

There is nothing in this bill to prevent, nor deter, health insurance companies from jacking up premiums.

They have a mandate that people buy health insurance, and we got nothing in return to control costs.

[ProSense]

37. "we got nothing in return to control costs" Actually, we did.

People claim the cost-control mechanism was the public option because it would have introduced competition.

The non-profit plan operated by the OPM in the exchange will have the same impact.

[Exilednight]

39. The OPM does not deter, nor set cost control mechanisms. All it does is .........

make up the difference between what people pay into insurance.

All the OPM does is funnel tax dollars into health insurance coffers by making up the difference.

The only difference is that the individual policy holder doesn't pay the insurance company directly. They pay the OPM a reduced cost premium payment, then the OPM makes up the difference through tax payer dollars.

So basically, policy holders are still paying the full amount, the only difference is that some of it is through taxes and not premiums.

But many (if not all) supporters of the current HCR refuse to acknowledge this fact.

[ProSense]

40. The availability

of a non-profit plan is the mechanism.

[Exilednight]

42. But it's not non-profit, the profit is just funneled through the government. ........

OPM makes up the difference, it's not an actual insurance provider.

[ProSense]

44. It is a non-profit.

You are making claims and don't fully understand the plan.

Your front loaded argument proves that.

[Exilednight]

46. It's not non-profit. You're don't fully understand how OPM works .......

Here's an example. The OPM negotiates a pre-arranged price for health insurance with for profit insurance providers.

So, for arguments sake and to use nice round numbers, let's say the price is $500.00 for a person with a pre-existing condition.

So now you have a $500.00 premium that is charged to the OPM.

The OPM turns around and sells you insurance, but only charges you $200.00.

Who gives the insurance company the other $300.00?

And if you only use $1000.00 worth of coverage, guess gets to keep the other $5000.00 that the OPM paid the insurance company for the rest of the year.

[ProSense]

50. "The OPM turns around and sells you insurance" What are you talking about?

There are non-profit plans in the exchange. Non-profit is non-profit.

You are making up scenarios that have no basis in fact.

By your definition the fact that CMS uses contractors makes Medicare a private plan.

[Exilednight]

53. There are no non-profits. It's just the OPM negotiating pre-arrageged prices ...........

with for profit insurance providers.

And yes, medicare is a private plan issued through the government, but that is also the reason we are going to run out of money for medicare.

[ProSense]

54. Yes, there are.

You need to read up on the bill.

[Exilednight]

58. I did read up on the bill. That is the way it works. I suggest you do the same. n/t

[Exilednight]

61. Here, this explains it.......

From the Washington Post :One element of the compromise, as reported by The Eye's hardworking colleagues Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery, would be to create a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

[ProSense]

66. Do you have a link?

• Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity.

link

[Exilednight]

70. Thank you for proving my point. Helps if you read your own document, fully.........

Read the WHOLE thing, and you will see that I am right.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I won't vote for a candidate that doesn't do shit but stand on principals...

If I want to whine about a government that does everything wrong, I would advocate reelecting a Republican House, Senate, and Executive.

It was great when we had no power. We could enshrine heroes who were able to say anything because they had only the ability to do nothing. I have enough of that under Bush.

A congress that stands on principal but does nothing deserves to be removed from power and sent home to spend more time with their families.

Results matter.

But then, I find tilting at windmills too tedious for words.

[TheKentuckian]

2. What winning strategy is being pursued? Surely not the current capitulation and ballwashing of the

wealthy and powerful.

Pretending it is the mid 90's is a winning gameplan but rather a roadmap to failure and ruining the Democratic and liberal brands for a generation even in light of utter failure and blatant insanity of the Republicans.

Dumb economics is bad politics as soon as the bill comes due.

[ProSense]

3. This is the beauty of criticism

It can be offered simply for the sake of criticism.

What winning strategy are you suggesting in lieu of actually governing and getting things done?

[TheKentuckian]

11. Getting what done? A shitload of corporate welfare and quarter measures

carefully designed to maintain a shitty status quo that is scuttling the future of the country and threatens to take down much of the world in the undertow?

"Pragmatism"/triangulation/appeasement/post-partisanship is a failure. We are trashing our brand when the other party is fucking failed and seemingly suicidal. That's not political genius no matter how you want to spin it.

[ProSense]

12. Getting done

health care reform, which the unions have been fighting to achieve for nearly a century. Getting financial reform done and putting in place consumer protections that activists have been fighting to achieve for decades.

"We are trashing our brand when the other party is fucking failed and seemingly suicidal."

Seem's more like people thrashing around because they have nothing better to do.

[Exilednight]

14. Here's some news for you ..........

Unions are getting to get fucked on HCR, they just haven't realized it yet. Just wait until their "cadillac" health care gets taxed to death and the companies at odds with those unions drop paying 100% coverage due to skyrocketing costs.

This so called financial reform is a joke. It does nothing but maintain the status quo in a slightly different form.

[ProSense]

16. "Unions are getting to get fucked on HCR, they just haven't realized it yet."

That's not news, that's a baseless opinion.

[Exilednight]

18. Opinion? So the tax that is going to get levied against so called "cadillac" plans ............

is an opinion? Someone better tell the IRS this news.

[ProSense]

20. Did you forget

that the unions supported the final plan?

[Exilednight]

23. No, I didn't forget, but union leaders are often notorious for .........

misleading their members. I belong to a union, and I've asked several people I work with if they knew about the tax - I've only heard one person say yes.

[paulk]

24. was that specifically because of the "cadillac plans"?

or was it in spite of them?

[ProSense]

25. The plan

referred to in the comment was the cadillac plan.

Unions negotiated and agreed to the final thresholds. Also, they secured more time for collective bargaining.

[Exilednight]

26. Yes, but in the end Union members will get screwed like the public did .............

I know that if I owned a company, and I paid 100% of each employees health care as outlined by my current labor agreement with the union, I would do everything in my power during the next round of negotiations to get out from under that cost.

It's a common sense business position.

[Donnachaidh]

29. insurance profit protection is NOT healthcare reform no matter how many pom poms you toss around.

Financial reforms that don't address the initial problem that tanked the economy and giveaways to pukes is NOT reform. Consumer protection from an office inside the Fed is like putting a chicken coop in a fox farm.

Total FARCE.

[TheKentuckian]

35. The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is not healthcare reform

It is instead a system designed to derail structural reform and maintain the current profit centers.

Knowing the legislation we are putting up varies from weak to cosmetic to counter productive is thrashing but I reckon everything seems haphazard if it doesn't come with someone else's thoughts, light commentary on those thoughts, and a hyperlink.

[ProSense]

45. Oh no

not another "clever" name.

"It is instead a system designed to derail structural reform and maintain the current profit centers."

What does that mean? Reform is to derail reform? Reform maintains the status quo?

Spend more time on a proper argument and less time coming up with "clever" names for the bill.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. It means there is NO REFORM in the health insurance act.

[TheKentuckian]

71. I'll boil it down for you, there is no structural reform. It's pretty much a scam

Pretending at reform to stop actual reform that might do things like breaking up the employer based system or take insurance out of the catbird seat as the gatekeeper to health care.

You know all of this and it is pretty goofy to pretend we did anything more than to put a new shell on the same old out of date, wealth extracting, profit oriented bullshit we had before and it is a few lightyears beyond asinine to pretend the profit centers have been affected.

[Milo_Bloom]

7. Actually... yes it is.

Being smart on the economy LEADS TO political success, because you have a success to point to. Unless your entire game is a shell game, being politically smart is doing smart things.

The stimulus was woefully small and the result now is that unemployment is right in their worst case scenario. The "think how bad it would be if we didn't pass a half ass measure" doesn't win you votes.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. The administration has already capitulated away the teeth out of all major legislation passed so far, which gives a 0 believability factor that they will hold out anytime in the future for what is smart over what is politically expedient.

[ProSense]

9. "Being smart on the economy LEADS TO political success, because you have a success to point to."

The point is that without a bill, there can be no success.

Look at the stimulus, Republicans who voted against it are using it in their campaigns as a their own success.

In fact, the stimulus was a Democratic success in both the economic and political arenas.

[Exilednight]

21. I don't find the stimulus bill to be a success .........

Economist put the true unemployment rate right around 16%. The stimulus was a half-ass measure and has not produced much for our nearly trillion dollar investment.

We could of just as easily taken that near one trillion and set up a 1% intrest government run loan system to help with struggling home owners and small businesses for individuals and have had better success.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. If you think the stimulus was a success, that is your problem.

The stiumus is yet another example of desperate unecessary compromise leading to long term failure and political consequences.

[ProSense]

28. No, it's not my problem

it's a fact.

Is the economy still losing more than 800,000 jobs per month?

[Milo_Bloom]

31. The complete detachment from reality is your problem.

Yes, I forgot in the crazy world of spin, not complete meltdown = success.

Too bad reality isn't quite so rosy. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/what-went-wrong/

[ProSense]

32. detachment from reality?

From the OP: It's the same reason they conveniently forget how the stimulus passed. The concept of $1.2 trillion became $900 billion after the initial debate. By the time the votes were there for it to pass, it had been reduced to $787 billion to attract Republican support.

Now, where does Krugman address the reality of getting a larger stimulus through Congress?

The critics problem is that they're ignoring the fact that Congress is not filled with progressive Senators.

Yeah, Krugman knows this. So who is detached from reality in thinking that Congress was going to pass a larger stimulus?

[hulka38]

38. Lecture the silly critics on the necessity of compromise in the Capitol

and then defend the Party leaders for beginning the negotiation processes by capitulating their positions of strength even before the compromising has begun. (i.e. single payer off the table and the public option never really seriously considered)

[ProSense]

41. "i.e. single payer off the table "

It was never on the table. Never.

Listen to Bernie Sanders: it never had the votes. It was an exercise in futility.

Insight into the legislative process: Bills need votes to pass.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. And this is where you don't understand negotiation.

The fact that it was never on the table was the problem.

[ProSense]

51. Do you understand

what an agenda is?

Was single payer part of the President's agenda?

[Milo_Bloom]

55. Yes

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."

He acknowledged it as the best possible solution, but didn't even ATTEMPT to sell it or use the threat of it as a negotiation point.

[ProSense]

57. When was that?

Can you provide a link that shows this is part of his 2008 Presidential campaign agenda?

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[ProSense]

68. A statement?

That is not an agenda.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Ohhh, that's right... don't listen to what he SAYS.

only pay attention to what he writes down under the word "Agenda".

Got it.

[hulka38]

59. When I negotiated the sale of my home with the buyer

I began at a price that I was certain he wouldn't pay - a position of strength. He countered with an offer he knew I wouldn't accept - a position of strength. We ended up making the deal and getting what we wanted because we negotiated. I'd be a poorer man if I had pulled my pants down and grabbed my ankles in the beginning.

[ProSense]

63. "a position of strength"

Tell that to the person who did the same thing and had the offer rejected.

Selling a home isn't equivalent to the legislative process. You don't need 60 votes to sell your house.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. Which makes negotiating from a position of strength even MORE IMPORTANT.

No wonder we are in such trouble.

People keep trying to defend the indefensible.

[hulka38]

67. There was risk in doing

what I did but I'm glad I did it. Some people have that blow up in their face. And some people don't even try for fear of having it blow up in their face which is a characteristic of the risk and confrontation averse. That person can still say, "I sold my home" but they just got schooled. It's a pretty generic example of negotiation and refutes your silly assertion that you can't start the negotiation process from a position of strength.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. The reality is they COULD have passed the larger stimulus through congress

The compromises were made to attact people who ended up voting no anyway.

ie, the compromises didn't have to made.

So, in answer to your question... It is you who are detached from reality.

[ProSense]

52. "The compromises were made to attact people who ended up voting no anyway."

No, they were made to attract the Republicans who voted yes.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Bzzz.

The 3 who voted yea, were in without the cuts.

[ProSense]

60. Bzzz

facts

[Milo_Bloom]

64. So a link to more spin is facts?

Nice try.

Bzzzz

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Catshrink]

72. Deleted message

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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