Finally, he learns to play poker.
President Obama will unveil his $3 trillion deficit reduction plan at 10:30 am this morning. This time, finally, the President is not conceding the fight right away by crafting a plan designed to win GOP votes. Rather, he is pushes for multiple tax increases on the rich, and will be issuing a veto threat against anything that cuts Medicare benefits while not raising taxes.
The White House’s strategy here isn’t to appear so reasonable that Republicans can’t help but cut a deal. They feel they tried that during the debt-ceiling debate, and it failed. The White House’s strategy here is to produce a popular plan that strikes directly at Republican vulnerabilities on taxes and Medicare. If that scares the GOP and makes them more interested in coming to an agreement in the supercommittee process, then great. If not, it gives the White House a message to base its reelection campaign off of.
Hell, they have tried it during the entire Obama presidency and it failed. Healthcare, Stimulus, you name it. It is long past time to switch to the better strategic option. And that better strategic option is to both call the Republican bluff on deficit reduction by calling for a larger reduction but by doing it your way; through new revenues via tax increases on the rich and by ending the wars. If all the Republicans can do is call it class warfare, then embrace that, and say Fuck yeah, it is a class war. The middle class and the poor versus the rich. Guess who has more votes, Mr. President?
David Plouffe is crying because he is sure the Republicans would be reasonable this time, and this hard line undermines Obama’s “adult in the room” brand strategy.
And the countdown to the fold begins………
So, this Democratic President has you believing that it is fine to cut medicare. How far we’ve come in the last 3 years.
He hasn’t learned how to play poker – he learned how to get money for his reelection bid while playing liberals for suckers.
If you think he gave a damn about poor people, you’d think he’d have an anti-poverty program, instead he is doing the opposite.
Too bad it’s a day late and a dollar short.
So Obama finally understands he needs us “effing retards” at full throttle to win the election. Too little, too late, too meaningless, too transparent a pander. Why dangle red meat when you can’t deliver?
The only way to win on taxes is for Obama to let all the tax cuts expire in 2012, just as he promised he would in his 12/7/2010 press conference. In the meantime, closing a few loopholes would be icing on the cake, as long as we still let those top rates expire. But I don’t see that in the cards. Obama has proposed too many half-solutions (“tax reform”) that would void his own promise of expiration.
Then we can spend 2013 fighting to un-expire the middle class tax cuts.
You realize that the only way we allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in late 2012 and the only way we can spend 2013 fighting to un-expire the middle class tax cuts is if Obama is reelected, don’t you? So you effing retards actually do have to be at full throttle and vote for him.
Indeed, given the possible GOP nominee, you would be an effing retard in not voting for him. But hey, that’s just me. Since staying home and pouting worked so well in 1994, 2000 and 2010, I am sure it will work again in 2012.
Oh, I’m going to vote for Obama. But it’s not my vote Obama needs to worry about.
And it’s not clear that even an Obama re-election will cause the tax cuts to expire. Obama has placed entirely too much tax mischief on the table, and has cast doubt on his December promise of expiration. Even mainstream Dem Senators like our own Chris Coons are behind the Bowles Simpson plan, which states that “the top marginal rate must not be greater than 29%” (and maybe as low as 23%).
I think with all this talk about tax reform it is worth posting this again. Obama’s 12/7/2010 press conference defending his extension of the Bush tax cuts remains the best insight into Obama’s mind (together with the debt limit concession of course).
Obama, Dec. 7 2010:
And from Simpson Bowles:
Remember, expiration gets you 39%.
And from Senator Coons:
No matter who you vote for, you get Republican policy.
Del Dem, look how well going out and voting for Obama in 2008 worked for us. I am sure it will work again in 2012.
So Anonone prefers that John McCain and Sarah Palin being President and Vice President today. And he really wants Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry to be in charge in 2013, because maybe if everything is destroyed, we can finally have a purist progressive in office.
Hypothetically, what do you think would have been the major economic policy differences between a McCain administration, and the actual Obama administration?
OK, Palin was a deal-breaker, and the Supreme Court nominations. But apart from that, I’m not sure economic policy could have been any worse under McCain.
Remember, McCain voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts in 2001, so he actually has better Democratic credentials on tax policy than many Democrats including Obama and Chris Coons.
McCain may well have governed like a long-lost moderate Republican on domestic policy, including tax increases and stimulus when needed. And he owes the tea party nothing.
I don’t require a purist progressive. I’d just like a real liberal in office, not a lying pretend one like Obama.
Obama is doing a pretty good job of destroying everything, whether you want to admit to it or not.
Oh please, you fucking liar. He has destroyed everything???? You sound just like a teabagger. Maybe you should vote for Bachmann. She sounds like she represents your opinions.
Come on DD. You would have been apoplectic in 2008 if Candidate Obama had proposed half the stuff President Obama has done.
What other Democrat would have dreamed of taking the party into elections with Democratic proposals on the table to cut taxes for the rich, cut Medicare, and cut Social Security?
This isn’t “purist” – it’s Democrat 101.
There is frustration, anger and disappointment, which I get and sometimes share, and then there is saying something so blatantly untrue and right wing that it was just said by Michele Bachman and Lindsay Graham yesterday.
President Obama has not destroyed anything, at all. To say so makes you a liar.
Yes, he hasn’t been as bold as we wanted on healthcare, yes he compromises and pursues stupid strategies like trying to attract Republican support for his plans, but he has not destroyed anything.
Progressives need to be careful not to sound like absolute morons. The teabaggers don’t need or want the competition.
I feel as though Obama has discredited if not destroyed the Democratic brand. This means the country will likely be sentenced to another round of Republican economic policy, even more depraved this time. I think that qualifies as destruction, if it happens.
Obama’s policies are failing to restore the economy because they are mostly Republican policies. Which we already knew were proven failures, yet we did them anyway.
Yet their failure will be seen as a failure of Democratic economic policy for generations. Obama has deliberately thrown away the economic wisdom and mojo Clinton bestowed on Democrats.
He hasn’t lived up to the Democratic brand, yet. He hasn’t destroyed it.
And how exactly was the auto bailout and the stimulus Republican policy?
A1: just for my understanding of your future comments for the next yearish. Will you be voting for Obama (because we both know a challenge from the left ain’t happening) and you’re just venting your frustration at having to do so? or are you staying home/voting republican/voting third party protest?
Personally I’m voting for him. Supreme Court alone is enough for me.
Also, I hate to be the word police, but can we chill out with the use of “effing retard?”
Environment – Worse since Obama took office.
Economy – Worse since Obama took office.
Poverty – Worse since Obama took office.
Children in poverty – Worse since Obama took office.
Civil liberties and freedom – Worse since Obama took office.
Middle class – Worse since Obama took office.
Election and campaign finance reform – Worse since Obama took office.
Strength and influence of labor – Worse since Obama took office.
Troops in Afghanistan – More since Obama took office.
Number of Americans without health insurance – More since Obama took office.
Okay, so it isn’t everything. But I understand your need to keep shilling for this fake liberal simply because he’s a Democrat.
V, for the first time since I voted for John Anderson I will likely not be voting for the Democrat for President next year if Obama is the nominee. I won’t vote for the Republican, either.
However, if Rick Perry is the republican nominee, I will reconsider. Rick Perry is flat-out evil.
And by the way, Del Dem, Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. Just look at the national party membership numbers and the trends since he took office: They were going up until 2 years ago and now they are the lowest in 22 years.
It doesn’t change your main point, but for the sake of accuracy, I believe the economy was at its worst right about the time he took office. While unemployment hasn’t improved much, the stock market certainly has recovered from its early-2009 collapse.
True, geezer. Although unemployment is up about 1.5 percentage points since Obama took office, the stock market and corporate profits are also up.
What month did unemployment hit its highest point, though? You can’t blame Obama for something that was building up just before he took office.
Obama predicted that if his stimulus bill passed, unemployment would peak at less than 8.5%. It actually peaked at over 10% and has been at crisis levels ever since.
Would it have been even higher without the stimulus? Absolutely.
Was the stimulus too small and was this known at the time? Yes, at least by the professional left.
So while I appreciate the fact that some stimulus was better than none, I don’t think that it is being unfair to point out that the unemployment numbers that Obama and his advisors predicted were way off or that today’s “pivot towards jobs” should have been happening a year ago.
There are tons of breathless liberal posts on dkos right now. I guess I wasn’t the only one waiting for “the reveal” (c) 2009.
Does it suck (and defy reason) that tax cuts are still seen by everyone in DC as economic drivers? Yes.
Nevertheless, am I happy that Obama seems to have changed his strategy? Oh hell yes.
Do I like this, asking myself questions then answering them, conceit? Not really.
But is it oddly addictive? Now that you mention it, yes indeed it is.
Can I stop it? I’ll do my best.
By consistently and pointlessly pandering to Republican beliefs and demands, Obama is cutting the legs out from under the Democratic Party. For example, we were going to run on protecting Medicare, but now we know Obama was willing to cut Medicare in a futile attempt to negotiate his way out of the debt ceiling “crisis” he created, when he capitulated on extending the Bush tax cuts.
Obama is a weak, inexperienced leader, who cannot even control his own advisers. He needs to go. If he had any commitment to doing the right thing, he would resign.
I will not vote for Obama (or a Republican). We have to let the chips fall where they may. There has to be a price. We cannot tolerate his betrayal.
Give me a break Vagina-tine. I know some people who didn’t vote for Gore out of some sense of liberal pique. How did that work out?
BTW – This is what is supposed to happen. The President gives Democrats stuff to run on .. and what do you know?… they run on it.
What strange magic is this? I haven’t seen it in some time.
What kind of “liberal” website consistently uses misogynistic (“she has a withered vagina!) and juvenile insults (“you’re stupid!” “No, you’re stupid!”) in place of rational discourse? Jason you are a sexist pig. I cannot believe you would reference my vagina in response to my comment. Go fuck yourself.
Puck wrote:
With the Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, and Rick Perry in the White House? Yup, good plan!
What you’ll wind up with is a last remembered gasp of President Obama and the Democrats seeing to it that everybody gets a tax increase. Go for it!
You guys can spew all the vitriol you want. Obama is not going to win in 2012. And if some of you are representative of his supporters, then good riddance.
Anonone agrees with Dana and Valentine.
“Obama is not going to win in 2012.” Angry predictions, the cornerstone of rational discourse.
misogynistic (“she has a withered vagina!)
So what is it when someone insults a man over his man parts? Perhaps you should stick to liberal sites that obsess over political correctness. This isn’t one of them.
2) My point about Al Gore stands unrefuted. Just sayin’
1) I sure wouldn’t have used the word “vagina” (*gasp* feint, *clunk* missed my feinting couch) if I thought the commenter had one.
Who makes anonone laugh out loud? jason330.
Does Del Dem even care that Obama is ruining the democratic party? Apparently not.
Did Gore lose the election in 2000? No, but jason330 likes to push that republican meme for some odd reason.
“I know some people who didn’t vote for Gore out of some sense of liberal pique. How did that work out?”
If anything Gore’s loss should have taught Dems to keep their traditional platform and not run to the right.
Gore’s “loss” inspired Howard Dean to run to the left of Gore to pull in those disaffected Dems. Dean ran on a platform that actually matched up well with polling on the issues. But Dems votad against Dean out of some sense of moderate pique.
So the Gore experience gave us Dean, the 50-state strategy, the netroots, and both houses of Congress (which Obama squandered).
“But Dems votad against Dean out of some sense of moderate pique.”
Not true. That was a media take down.
I’m so tired of this argument. I liked Dean, but I’m willing to bet that, if he won the nomination, “people” would be saying he wasn’t progressive enough, that he was a liar, a corporate shill, etc.
Ta-Nehisi Coates:
Tom Carper mouthing off from the comfortable environs of blue Delaware is a failure of Team Commie to be regarded as serious political force. People who talk of primarying Obama need to pick smaller targets–and thus elicit bigger results.
But being taken seriously involves actual work. It means a poverty tour that doesn’t just bark (Obama the black mascot) but bites (voter registration in swing districts.) If you don’t like the current iteration of America, you need to remember that you are America. The failure to build a more progressive America isn’t merely a testimony to dastardly evil, it’s a testimony to the failure of progressives.
Followed by Matt Yglesias:
If you’re a progressive and you feel that the political system isn’t doing what you want, it’s misguided to look at this as a personal failure of elected officials. It’s, if anything, a personal failure of you and people like you. Justice and equality doesn’t just happen because it’s nice, people need to make it happen. If it’s not happening, then its advocates are failing.
Seriously, what are “we” accomplishing? But… maybe accomplishing something isn’t the point. Maybe Liberals/Progressives are most comfortable with bitching? Vote for Obama, don’t vote for Obama. I really don’t care anymore.
Agree on media takedown. But the media takedown found too many willing ears in the party.
“I’m willing to bet that, if he won the nomination, “people” would be saying he wasn’t progressive enough, that he was a liar, a corporate shill, etc.”
True. But Warren Buffet would be paying a higher tax rate than his secretary.
If you get the economic policy right, you can afford to let the smears roll off you. Prosperity works like that.
But when the money is tight (and it’s YOUR FAULT), all the BS sticks like glue, and hurts you at election time.
Pandora,
Thanks for that. In the defense of leftists lazy louts everywhere, I will say that it is demoralizing to try and box with Carper, and Fox News and ABC News and the Koch Brothers, and Verizon with my puny arms. Especially when you don’t get any support from the top of the ticket.
That said, everything in your comment is true.
I don’t see how stating the obvious — Obama is not going to win in 2012 — can be read as angry.
First it is not obvious. The GOP will nominate Perry, and Perry will lose horribly to Obama. Even with Obama’s approval between 43 and 46 right now, he is trouncing Perry by double digits.
If you Rethugs were smart, you would nominate Romney or Huntsman. They have a shot at defeating Obama. But we all know neither have a shot at the nomination.
I guess we will find out eventually, which of us is right.
I’m beginning to think that being “right” is what matters most. Whatever. I’m over it. Fortunately, I have the luxury of being able to be over it. Do what you will. I really don’t care.
It isn’t about being *right* — it is more about who can be the most aggrieved. It is the theater of the thing that is valued here — certainly not its politics.
To the point of the post, I’d say that this is a good sign that THE REVEAL is eminent:
Please remember that Mr. Bachmann received Medicare “pray the gay away” benefits. I’m all for cutting that!
Well, when the financial security of your family depends on “being right” on economic policy, yeah – it’s about being right.
And “being aggrieved” seems to be the only thing that has forced some Democratic noises out of President Obama. So unless you have something else that works – do what works.
Unless you don’t care.
Do you care? About what’s possible? Me? I’ve reached the point that what will be will be… and, you’re correct, my family will probably be fine either way. So, shoot me… or shoot yourself in the foot.
Grabbed from a current kos story:
Be aggrieved!! It’s working!! Come on, we need every Who in Whoville to start complaining – we need every unpleasant raspy voice to join us in aggrievement to save Medicare, and who knows, maybe the whole middle class!!
Some of us, like me, believe that working for liberal policies and principles is more important than working simply to keep Democrats in power.
Others, like cassandra_m and Del Dem, believe that working to keep fake liberals like Obama in power simply because they are Democrats is more important than either policy or principle.
Being aggrieved is the habit of people who find the theater more interesting than the politics. Because it isn’t as though you care enough about the financial security of the families most affected by all of this to actually work for a better outcome.
And I wouldn’t claim “aggrieved” as any great progressive accomplishment. If you listened to Obama today, he is still playing straight to the middle. The fact that you can applaud this (and try to take credit for it) is a sign of how married to the theater of it all you really are.
OK, you keep working for conservadems, and the rest of us will keep moving them to the left. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Can always count on you to keep up the delusional. I won’t wait too long for you to get the clue of what today’s proposals were for. Your being in the “left” is where you’ve decided to place yourself on the Playbill. Not where you’ve actually done anything to get there.
But hey — knock yourself out. You and David Anderson have more in common than you know.
Whatever you think that David Anderson and I have in common, you can be sure that it isn’t the blind unquestioning loyalty to a particular political party that you share with him.