This is Not About Obama…I promise
Okay…. I just read this over at Eschaton. Many of you probably have as well.
Fiscal Hawks: Rich people in Nassau edition.
MINEOLA, N.Y. — Facing a huge budget deficit when he took office in January, Nassau County Executive Edward P. Mangano did not impose a hiring freeze. He did not stop borrowing to subsidize some of the richest school districts in the country. He did not eliminate the Police Department’s beloved mounted unit.
Instead, Mr. Mangano, a Republican who won one of the first upsets of the Tea Party era, did what he had promised: He cut taxes, adding $40 million to the county’s deficit, which has since reached nearly $350 million.
Now, with its bonds suddenly downgraded and a state oversight agency preparing to seize its checkbook and credit cards, Nassau is on the verge of a full-fledged fiscal crisis.
Just 11 years ago they had to be bailed out by the state.
The jaw drops. Words don’t form in the brain. The blogger shakes his head and rubs his eyes like the archetypal skid row drunk from a Three Stooges Short who just saw a mummy. Throws bottle of whiskey in trash can.
Here is the thing. REPUBLICANS ARE OPEN ABOUT BEING FULL OF SHIT IDEOLOGICAL MORONS WHO ONLY WANT TO FUCK SHIT UP, AND OBAMA KEEPS THINKING THAT THEY ARE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH!!! It isn’t the Senate. The Senate is symptom. Modern Republicanism is the disease.
Dang it. I promised that I was not going to make this about Obama. Sorry ya’ll.
Why is it hard to understand? Obama negotiates with Republicans because he has to negotiate with Republicans. 58 < 60 From what I can tell the alternate plan is to let the tax cuts expire. And then the thinking is that they'll be more desperate or something I guess. This part is quite fuzzy. I never see any mention of the unemployed either in this formulation or what can be done to stimulate the economy.
I see your point. If you could only allow that Obama is doing a shitty job from the perspective of confronting Republican bullshit head on and building a case for electing Democrats, that would go a long way toward creating some goodwill.
You Obama enablers are so rigid and strident. I’m just searching for some middle ground.
So the middle ground is Obama is shitty and I am an enabler?
Before you get to Obama, though, you have to account for the people who voted for this fiscal malpractice. People who continually buy the idea sold by politicians of all stripes that somehow your government is free. That somehow the government is immune to the higher price you pay for gas or rent or paper. That the people who work for government ought to do so for dirt bloody cheap, no benefits and horrible conditions while meeting all of our very high expectations. These voters got the pig in a poke they voted for. Voting for a teajadi is to vote for the destruction of your community. Fast or slow, there will be destruction.
I’d agree that modern republicanism is the disease, but there is nothing about that knowledge that gets you to 60 votes, either. And as long as that is the requirement, then some negotiating with repubs will happen.
UI, I was going to write, “Part of this, I think, comes down to the fact that it is hard to argue with the gals. They take everything so personally.”
But I didn’t think you would get the humor.
Is it to much to ask that the reality-based community acknowledge reality? It could be that Obama was trying to balance interests – the need for another UI extension, the need for more stimulus and the need to let the tax rates expire? Looking at those he put the unemployment extension a d stimulus first and gave Republicans tax cuts in exchange.
I agree with Cassandra.
BTW Nassau should be allowed to fail, just like the teabaggers say.
My basic point is that I’m hearing you say that it is all about policy, and not about politics. My own eyes and ears tell me that the job of the President is at least 50% POLITICS and, perhaps we can all agree that he is doing a shitty job at the politics.
I’m not happy with the way he’s handling politics, but focusing on politics can be viewed as a luxury during good times.
The Senate is a mess. And you can lay ALL the blame at Obama’s door if you believe that he would have vetoed a Middle Class tax cut only, or DADT repeal, etc. If you believe that then dump all the blame on him.
IMO, there is plenty of blame to go around.
there is nothing about that knowledge that gets you to 60 votes,
There is also nothing about playing football that gets you over the goal line, unless you run some plays. You also need to be running toward your own goal line and not the other team’s.
IMO, there is plenty of blame to go around.
This is the universal excuse, isn’t it?
And the metaphorically challenged returns.
Running some plays in this instance means including repubs, since the people on your own team don’t always act like it. And you can’t bench or trade them.
This is what I’m talking about.
Yes, it is the Senate that forces Obama to constantly lie, fight against DADT in court, begin defunding Social Security, freeze Federal Wages, escalate the war in Afghanistan, roll back environmental protections, make secret back-room deals with corporations, ignore and then trash his base, fail to prosecute war and financial crimes, and on and on and on…
It is all the Senate’s fault. That’s it.
I know. If only Obama had given Senators daily spankings he would have gotten everything he wanted. Because that’s the way it works.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 11 December 2010 at 2:36 pm:
“Why is it hard to understand? Obama negotiates with Republicans because he has to negotiate with Republicans. 58 < 60"
Bush always got what he wanted from Congress, irregardless of which party controlled the Congress.
Yet Obomba, with his party controlling both chambers, could not deliver squat for his base.
Funny how Obomba supporters simply want to blame everything on the Senate and deliberately ignore the myriad of anti-progressive actions, policies, proposals, and incompetent leadership that he has executed entirely on his own.
Even one of Obama’s (formally) most passionate supporters, Cornel West, is now calling for active protests against him.
Not true. He wanted to privatize Social Security in 2005. That was blocked by Democrats. The reason Bush got some legislation is because Democrats didn’t filibuster it. Oh wait, I’m sure that is Obama’s fault somehow. The 60 vote supermajority problem is only very recent, since Republicans decided to filibuster absolutely everything. BTW, Bush did work with Democrats to get legislation passed – remember Kennedy’s role in No Child Left Behind?
Yes, I remember that, UI. And now Democrat Obama wants to be the one to start dismantling Social Security by defunding it, but like so many other things that were horrible when Bush did them, they’re okay when they’re done by Obama (D).
I also remember when Senator Obama said he was going to support the filibuster against immunity for telecoms for illegal wiretapping, but then voted for immunity. I guess that was shades of dishonesty to come.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 11 December 2010 at 8:41 pm:
“Not true. He wanted to privatize Social Security in 2005. That was blocked by Democrats.”
An exception that proves the rule.
Delivering for the base is not just passing legislation favored by the base, it’s also blocking legislation unpopular with the base.
For example… If the Democrats wanted to end war funding, stop immunity for the telecoms and stop the bankster bailouts, they had the votes to block legislation favored by the Republicans and unpopular with the Democratic base.
That the Congressional Dems, including Senator Obomba, repeatedly failed to block unpopular bills, when they had the votes to do so during the Bush years, explains why Pres. Obomba and the Democrat controlled Congress continue to ignore their constituents wishes today.
Interjecting a new thought… if the Obama compromise was actually good legislation, there wouldn’t need to be those tons of sweeteners added to buy their votes. And they are sweet. Just hearing them read off a list, causes me to share a kinship with Pavlov’s dog.
We must face this fact. This is not like Reagan’s tax cut, or Clinton’s tax rise, or Bush W’s tax cut, all which were voted up or down based on their merits… .. This is a bad piece of legislation that has to bribe politicians to get itself passed…
I’m sure I’m not the only one seeing that… (now where did I put that box of tissues)