Reply With Quote
No. Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress (for worse). Obama is incapable of motivating congress to do anything. We'd be in a much better place today had Bush been as incapable and ineffective as Obama is.
Toro, toro!
No. Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress (for worse). Obama is incapable of motivating congress to do anything. We'd be in a much better place today had Bush been as incapable and ineffective as Obama is.
"Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress"
he controlled both houses for 6 years, then he hit a brick wall, just like Barry who hasn't controlled both houses from day 1.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-01-2011 at 11:44 AM.
Bush never hit a brick wall. In Bush's last two years he had more fights with republicans over TARP and all the bailouts than he did with the democrats.
Bush couldn't even order a pizza by himself.
, he couldn't even finish a bag of pretzels without getting 911 emergency involved
There was no fighting about TARP until the last month of dubya's reign of error. Then the real fighting started when the Repugs who wanted to bailout Wall St, knowing it was unpopular, fought against it knowing they would lose and be able to claim innocence and blame TARP on the Dems.
Press indicates NOBODY is happy with the debt fiasco. eg, AP says "ranges from anger to angrier".
It sure looks like failing pass today is quite a possibility.
That would give Barry a chance to find his balls and -slap the Repugs with the 14th Amendment. (I have no hope that he has any desire or clue how to out-crazy the Repug crazies)
failing pass today?
yes, they vote today
the vote may fail, then?
failing (to) pass is quite a possibility?
nm
Agreed. How many left-based things as he promised and followed through on? Then compare with how many left-based things he hasn't, or even swung more towards the right side on. Not pretty.
yes, I think the Dem progressives and Repug scrotum suckers are willing to shut it down.
There are Repugs who want not a dime cut from defense, triggers or no triggers.
tbh, Krugman goes the wrong way when he suggests the president should've played some legal shenanigans and attributed himself the ability of raise the debt ceiling at least temporarily until Congress passed something. Those kind of legal interpretations and unchecked extension of executive powers is exactly what you would expect from Bush JR, and thus, I've come to expect from Obama. So on that point, I'm glad Barry did what he did.
the 14th amendment isn't extra legal, but it is open to interpretation whether it should be limited to Civil War era or expanded to current times. I figure if it went to the extremist Repug SCOTUS, they'd love to screw Barry.
Here's a contrarian position:
Obama did the right thing by agreeing to cuts in the trillions. It would have been nice to get some tax reform along the way, but he took what he could get in order not to default.
That, I believe, does show some leadership in the respect that he: was aware of his limitations in controlling votes; put the needs of the country before his party's position in that he showed a willingness to do what is necessary to avoid default rather than hold out for something he knew he couldn't get; and told his democratic congressional leaders that the reality was that this is what they could get it...take it and live to fight another day.
I think that Obama will be a one-term president, and that he probably doesn't deserve more than that...but I think that the tea party action in this matter shows that extortion forces rational people to give in rather than allow horrible results for the country. They should be the losers in the next election, but who knows if they will be?
We have gotten the government that we as a people voted for. This is it.
No leadership here.
Barry, the country was taken hostage by crazies, and they folded. Even half of Repug voters thought the rigidity of the Congressional Repugs was insane.
There will be MUCH more hostage taking to come. The greedy, predatory, destructive VRWC sharks and their Repug proxies won't ever satisfied. The blood is in the water. It's a feeding frenzy now. EPA, IRS, HHS, health care reform, will all be defunded or annulled. USDA and FDA will be intimidated into approving/permitting any old as food, drugs, environmental destruction.
What? How?
Did Krauthammer tell you that?
“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us...gewanted=print
There was a different government I could have voted for?
Ransom Paid
Anyone who characterizes the deal between the President, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.
The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been, in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.
It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.
Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice.
http://www.truth-out.org/ransom-paid/1312207122
=========
Debt Ceiling Agreement: Don't Call It A Compromise
Perhaps this is just semantics, but I’ve seen several reports on the debt-ceiling framework describe it as a “compromise” between Republicans and Democrats. That’s far too generous a term. Is this a deal? Sure. Is it an agreement? Absolutely. Can it fairly be characterized as a “compromise”? Not at all.
Republicans threatened to crash the economy, on purpose, unless a series of radical demands were met. Democrats made an effort to lessen those demands and make them less painful than intended. The result, not surprisingly, is rather ugly, which is to be expected.
The debt-reduction framework isn’t a compromise; it’s a ransom. If one were to draw up two lists — one with all the concessions Democrats made, the other with the concessions the GOP made — the one-sided image would be striking. Of course, that’s what happens when one party has a gun to the head of its hostage — in this case, the nation and its economy — and the other party wants to prevent their rivals from pulling the trigger.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._a_compromise/
Counterpointhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...S-Has-Our-BackNow, what do Obama, and you, gain from this:
First and foremost, you gain a long-term debt ceiling extension. For fiscal stability, our credit rating, and economic growth in the future, this had to happen, and it had to be in a bi-partisan way. I know many of you cowboys on Daily Kos wanted POTUS to go the cons utional route; I did too. But it's a bad idea because it would merely be trading a cons utional crisis from an economic crisis and, most critically, would not restore investors confidence in U.S. credit. This is a far better outcome.
Second, Obama was able to define the terms of the debate going forward. While he may not have been able to convince a majority of Republicans in congress that taxes have to be raised, he won in the court of public opinion. Americans get that we need to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy and big business, in a way they never have before, and a majority favor it (including even a few Republicans). Imagine you are Obama's eventual opponent in the Presidential. You have to take a position on the commission's findings and the nation's choices going forward. You probably have to continue advocating for tax cuts and budget cuts. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats still have their social program talking points, because Obama did not meaningfully concede on those programs. The majority of Americans have made clear that they prefer the latter approach. It's a good position for a Democratic candidate to be in.
Third, the GOP has been shown up for what it is, an extremist party out of step with the majority of Americans. We all benefit from the comparison.
Fourth, this plan does contain revenue enhancements, just by another name. Here's why:
(a) the commission will realistically have to consider them, if it is going to have any credibility and reach a result that can pass both houses of Congress;
(b) the sequestration is itself a revenue enhancement. As a former military member, I can tell you from personal experience that the military industrial complex, from the bombers made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to the Burger Kings on and around the bases is huge. It is as much an "en lement" program for those associated with the military as Social Security and Medicare are to everyone else. If these cuts occur, a major GOP cons uency will be in a world of hurt, but the funds will be freed up for other programs. Same with the Medicare cuts. Notice that they are cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. I know many people think this is not a meaningful difference, but it is, because Medicare is the providers' bread and butter, and there is a limit to the degree to which they can pass those savings along. Again, it's revenue that is mostly fattening up an industry, and cutting it means it can be used elsewhere more efficiently and;
(c) the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are themselves revenue enhancements, Obama gets the final vote on whether this occurs. It's not in the deal.
If you go to Redstate, you will see that they do not like this deal any more than you do, and for all of the reasons outlined above. They feel as though they have lost, and they are right. They wanted to instigate a default, and they did not do that. They wanted to cut Social Security, and they did not do that, they wanted another opportunity to fight this battle, and they did not get that. What they did get is that major GOP cons uencies (defense and corporate health providers) have been put in jeopardy of major cuts, and from our perspective this is a good thing. What they also got is a damocles hanging over their head in the form of the soon to expire Bush tax cuts, which Obama can blackmail them with just as they did all of us with the debt ceiling.
"the GOP has been shown up for what it is, an extremist party out of step with the majority of Americans. We all benefit from the comparison."
We only benefit if there is some electoral penalty for the Repugs being anarchic extremists.
Human-Americans, not only bubbas, are suckers for Repug lies and corporate media centrism (both Dems and Repugs are treated equally as if both were legit, although a Tea Bagger demonstration gets covered, while progressive demonstrations get smothered). The VRWC/Repug hate-media machine will rev up their lying and hate even more now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions