'The President Surrenders'

Post #345,545 by Ashton 8/1/11 9:31:10 PM Reply	'The President Surrenders' http://www.nytimes.c...ceiling.html?_r=1 Sometimes when Krugman thinks the sky-is-falling .. he just got hit by a piece. Robert Reich's version http://robertreich.org/post/8331408301
Post #345,550 by lincoln 8/1/11 9:55:08 PM Reply	more often than not, Krugman is right and he's right here. The RepubliCANTS have learned that extortion WORKS! And they will keep using it until a Democrat in the White House stands up to them. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,555 by Ashton 8/1/11 10:18:09 PM Reply	Reich also spells that out for slow readers http://robertreich.org/post/8331408301 [. . .] Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the President could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOPÂs ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government Â thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not. And through it all the President could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the RepublicansÂ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not. The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy. By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so. By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal Â claiming only that theyÂd seek to do it differently than the GOP Â Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nationÂs future prosperity. The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands. Of course, 'it' hasn't PASSED.. into infamy, yet.
Post #345,556 by Another Scott 8/1/11 10:47:23 PM Reply	Reich has a similar blindness to Krugman. Where is Obama supposed to get the votes for increased stimulus, etc.? He barely got the votes for the smaller packages when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. A president who proposes stuff and gets defeated in Congress loses power and gets less done in the future. Remember Jimmy Carter? It's self-defeating (no matter how viscerally satisfying) to shake one's fist and make demands if one can't get the votes. Obama's best course now is to co-opt the Republican's claimed most important issues (the deficit, cutting spending, etc.), and get ahead of them to guide the debate and the legislation. It's defensive, sure, but it's more productive than not getting anything. And he lives to fight another day. It's fine, and important, to talk about what the proper economic response is. Yes, we could easily get out of this hole we're in with sensible federal policies that invest in infrastructure, new technologies, education, supports the states so they don't have to make such draconian cuts, get Fannie and Freddie to fix the mortgage mess, etc., etc. Yes, we're in a multi-trillion dollar hole and doing nothing is making it worse. But those policies aren't going to happen without the votes. And with the way the Congress and Senate are now, it's hard to see how anyone could get a new stimulus package, etc., passed. Reid and Obama aren't stupid, even if they make decisions that we don't see the logic for. If the debt ceiling had been increased in December 2010, the House Republicans could have held something else hostage - like the Budget. As Yglesias said, if a clean debt ceiling increase had been approved, instead of battling in July, they would be battling in September. And now it's clear to almost everyone that the Republicans were willing to blow up the FF&C of the US to get legislation that they could never win through the normal appropriations process. People aren't going to forget that, I expect. As much as I disagree with the Republicans' policies and as much as I think they are damaging the country, I have great respect for Obama's insistence on dealing with them. They are elected representatives of the people, and the President has the responsibility to work with them. If we want our government to start working again, that has to happen. The two branches have to take their responsibilities seriously - demonizing them and trying to find ways around them is ultimately damaging to our system. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,560 by Ashton 8/2/11 1:18:01 AM Reply	Re: Reich has a similar blindness to Krugman. I do appreciate that angles remain, that it's possible that his tactics AND strategy may be leading to a coup de grace against the Banana Republican suicidal-wing of the Party. (A mercy killing, of course.) I expect that he bloody-well should see a lot more options.. than do the vox populi! But if enough congresscritters today (against this extortion) have left, little faith? in Obama's meta-bargaining chops--thus the bill just won't pass: O. shall be forced to use the National Security option (hardly a ploy: it IS about national security, in the most precise sense) to evade that which some of these terrorists Really want: Screw the US/or any mere 'people' in it; 'we want our country back' aka decoded: kill the Nigger. We now have too many Disgusting people, IMO, to form a country (next) anything like what America once was thought to 'be about'. The 0.1% manifestly Pwns X% of our alleged representatives; we can never know X, only surmise.. is that fait accompli even reversible, where voting is optional among so many? I too continue to hope that Obama's Plan is far more meticulously constructed than I can guess. I also hope that he didn't skip Street Fighting 101--an elective course. (I don't think you get more than one chance to elect an outstanding mind to the WH/per century; Muricans are stalwart against any overt signs of intellect. ) Toes crossed. Beladonna candle lighted to drive away the Golem.
Post #345,639 by Another Scott 8/3/11 9:19:00 PM Reply	Booman's take - Know your enemies. http://www.boomantri...1/8/2/214920/4633 Here we go again. Robert Reich is making good points again, but also misfiring. This is a problem with blame assignment. Before I even look at Reich's argument, let me clear one thing up from the start. How can the federal government create jobs? It can put more money in people's pockets so that they'll spend it on stuff and increase demand. It can give out contracts for people to do work. It can create tax incentives for companies to buy equipment or hire more workers this year rather than next. That's about it. And what do all those things have in common? They cost money. They lower revenues. They increase our debt and deficit, at least in the short term. You know what else they have in common? The Republicans are opposed to doing any of them. [...] Read it - I won't spoil it by quoting more. :-) Very well said, IMO. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,793 by Ashton 8/5/11 8:10:22 PM Reply	Wise words.. Also replies, mostly: Re: Know Your Enemies (4.00 / 4) Reich drives me crazy. Of course he makes excellent points about jobs and the economy, but like Krugman he knows little or nothing about political maneuvering, and they both demonstrate it each time they write a column. This war has become far more about politics--since the Repugs have the ability and organizational clout to thwart every rational economic step that could be made, they have to be soundly defeated at the ballot box (enough to overcome the Diebold problem). I think Obama has been well aware of this ever since the lead-up to HCR, when we had ample evidence that idiocy, with a complicit media and Koc, Inc., was afoot Have to concur, finally re. this take on Reich's pol-naivete, as well as Krugman's similar blind spots re the Whole enchilada. But in Not having such blind-spots (One Hopes), Obama just may have some Aces to play. Agree with 4.00 / 4 on that sentiment. Diss the Disgusting Destroyers of decent dialogue, as we alliteration addicts admirably affirm.
Post #345,827 by boxley 8/6/11 11:26:30 AM Reply	counter with a quote from some commentary Hey, Harry? Maybe if your clown car "leadership" in the Senate had actually proposed a budget when you controlled all three branches we wouldn't be in this sitchÂ the disdain for slightly less than 1/2 of the voting public is what landed us in our current situation. the "back of the bus" comments by the president fueled the current firestorm. Sow what you reap. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,554 by Another Scott 8/1/11 10:17:55 PM Reply	Dunno. Paul knows his economics, but he really doesn't get the politics that Obama has had to work under. IMO. The votes haven't been there to do more. E.g. does Paul think that Obama would have vetoed a Public Option? I don't. The votes weren't there. This is just the opening salvo in a 463 day battle. The cuts this year are only $22 B (or maybe as little as $7B). Supposedly this deal also takes a battle over the Continuing Resolution off the table. http://swampland.tim...al/#ixzz1Tnh5WFUj The Republicans wanted to gut the ACA via this process. They wanted to force Obama to beg the Congress for a debt ceiling increase every 6-9 months. They wanted $100B in cuts this year. He prevented all that. He wanted a "grand bargain" to take these budget battles off the table, and to force the Republicans to finally break with their destructive "no taxes under any circumstances" pledge. That hasn't happened quite yet, but it's still early. The ace in his hand is the end of the Bush tax cut extension. The Republicans know this. I'm not willing to write Obama off just yet. But we'll see what happens. I expect him to win in November 2012, but if he loses, all bets are off. :-( FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,557 by static 8/1/11 10:55:09 PM Reply	He's also made them look like fanatical idiots. The sort you probably shouldn't have elected. Even I could see the difference in Obama's TV address from the Reps. His stance was "we're trying to compromise to stop a disaster". Their's was "we won't stop until we get want we want". Smart move appealing to the public; I bet a lot of Republicans heard a lot more about their constiuents' views than they really wanted to. :-) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #345,585 by mmoffitt 8/2/11 1:38:42 PM Reply	No votes for public option? Really? It was very close. And it DID pass the House. "We had it, we wanted it ... it's not in the reconciliation," Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. "It isn't in there because [the Senate doesn't] have the votes to have it in there." Momentum had been building to reintroduce the government-run plan. Over 40 senators have endorsed a letter sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) that called for senators to pass the public option using the budget reconciliation process. http://thehill.com/b...be-in-health-bill It would have helped if we'd had a little leadership from the White House. Like, for instance, he could have written about the public option in this editorial: http://www.nytimes.c....html?ref=opinion and not, as he did, send the message that he was ready to cave in to his Wall Street masters through his minions as he did here: "Racing to regain control of the health-care debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals," The Washington Post front-pages. "As President Obama finishes a western swing intended to bolster support for his signature policy initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened the door to a compromise on a public option, saying it is 'not the essential element' of comprehensive reform. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' that Obama 'will be satisfied' if the private insurance market has 'choice and competition.'" http://firstread.msn...-no-public-option I was on Ralph Nader's list and the Baucus Panel would not take testimony from ANYONE who favored national health insurace. It was largely accepted that the reason that panel would not hear anything about single payer healthcare (which was supported by a majority of Americans) was because the White House did not want it heard. What was it he said? "If you want to be a leader, you have to lead." This turkey has been everything I thought he was going to be.
Post #345,587 by Another Scott 8/2/11 1:53:41 PM Reply	The problem was always getting 60 in the Senate. At least at one point, most members of both bodies wanted a Public Option. But there weren't enough votes - 60 - to get it through the Senate. It was going to die in the Senate if Obama tried to force a Public Option through. http://www.democrati...dress=132x8516732 An OpEd wasn't going to change Ben Nelson's or Blanche Lincoln's minds. With 13 Blue Dogs actively opposed, or not willing to support it, even Reconciliation with 51 votes wasn't going to happen. Obama knows how to count votes. Boehner apparently is still learning. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,591 by mmoffitt 8/2/11 2:02:16 PM Reply	He only needed 11 more for reconciliation. 40 were already on record. But by then he had caved in. That's what I meant about leadership. Strong arming people instead of doing what he always does - leave the Progressives out on a limb by themselves. This is what I expected he would do and why I said his election in 2008 would be a catastrophe for progressive politics. The bottom line is that he had majorities in both houses and a mandate from the masses. He was incompetent at the task of using that power and provide(d/s) absolutely no cover for any Senator or Congressman who dares have an idea inconsistent with the will of Obama's Wall Street backers. It's Government Sachs and President Wall Street, as predicted.
Post #345,685 by crazy 8/4/11 12:05:24 PM Reply	Getting a bit tired of the whining Hey, I have health insurance. 1st time in 3 years. I have a very odd genetic illness. Won't kill me, but might require an occasional expensive treatment. There was NO way I could afford non-employer provided coverage. The few that would actually cover me would charge many multiples over the standard. And now? All of them HAVE to at least offer it, and then the cost is evenly spread out no matter which one takes me on, since any of them could be assuming the same risk, rather than 90% cherry picking and saying no, and 10% charging huge amounts for coverage. Affordabley, at least to me. So, what do YOU want? Oh yeah, a socialist paradise. And you are PISSED when you don't get it, and blame the 1 guy who actually probably agrees with you, and works within the system to move in that direction. Too slow? Who should he kill to implement your plans? Whiner
Post #345,694 by mmoffitt 8/4/11 2:01:50 PM 8/4/11 2:20:54 PM Reply	Start with bankers, then Wall Street traders. Then corporate boards. Edit: I was going to leave the joke and say nothing more because you can't seem to get it. My position is that no one should profit from some one's illness, least of all accountants, CIEFO's, shareholders and the rest of those who do not in any way participate in the delivery of healthcare, but capitalize on it anyway. In short, I want what virtually every other person living in the industrialized world outside of the United States already has - a right to healthcare not predicated upon the proposition that non-actors in the delivery of my healthcare must profit financially from its delivery. "Socialist utopia" indeed. Nice try. But what I'm really talking about is "reality" virtually everywhere except here. Edited by mmoffitt Aug. 4, 2011, 02:20:54 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #345,706 by crazy 8/4/11 6:08:59 PM Reply	Why not? My position is that no one should profit from some one's illness, least of all accountants, CIEFO's, shareholders and the rest of those who do not in any way participate in the delivery of healthcare, but capitalize on it anyway. Yes, there are levels upon levels of skimming going on. But ya know something? Someone just told me that it should be illegal for companies to make more than 10%. He was referring to the drug companies. He was under the mistaken impression that just because a federally funded school discovered the key element of a new drug, after that all the drug company did was "bring it to market". It can cost hundreds of millions to bring a drug to market. He forgot about that. You wanna tell me who is paying for that? Shall we now have a government board to determine the direction of R&D, and also pays for the testing. Should make it cheaper. Of course, at that point, why do the research? Why take things to market? The only time someone gambles with those type of numbers is when there is a serious payback on the horizon. I have NO faith in any government directed and funded program to make a sustained drug research and production effort. The people in charge spend all there time in CYA mode, and this means they will approve almost nothing for the next step. They have NO incentive to.
Post #345,741 by mmoffitt 8/5/11 8:30:29 AM Reply	You trust bidness? http://www.fda.gov/d...calls/default.htm Good thing the government's looking out for you.
Post #345,760 by crazy 8/5/11 12:12:45 PM Reply	Of course not But you can't have it both ways. Somebody needs to PUSH new drugs through the system. It takes a certain level of crazyness. I don't TRUST these people. That would be stupid. But I TRUST there is an incentive to push the science forward and turn pure discoveries into usable drugs. I TRUST that some of them will kill me, and others might save me. And that is the only way to move forward. Well? What do you want? A protective government that controls all R&D and production and has NO incentive to do anything, or a bunch of crazies, some of which will discover and peddle the cure for cancer, others who will try to sell you snake oil. Remember this saying: You pretend to pay us and we pretend to work? There was a reason the Soviets stagnated, no matter how wonderful the ideal is.
Post #345,771 by mmoffitt 8/5/11 1:12:49 PM Reply	And how many would have died of polio? If it hadn't been for Salk refusing personal profit? Bidness doesn't do anything it can't make money on. It always cracks me up to hear the euphemisms in "Vision Statements" and the like. The only reason any business exists is to make money for the shareholders. Think the government doesn't already fund the majority of drug research? Think again. Google "university drug discoveries" some time. Lilly spends roughly 17 dollars on advertising for every dollar it spends on research. Take government grants to universities out of drug research and see what happens. There are some things the government does that it is uniquely qualified to do. Pure research is one of them. In bidness, you better be damned sure you're going to discover something the shareholders are going to be able to make money on in 10 months. Or you can forget the company paying for your research. We're about to learn a painful lesson about that now that the Big O has decided to "privatize" NASA. Sit back and watch how well that works. Most big discoveries come serendipitously. Bidness won't stand for that, but researchers at universities - with government grants - do it every day. Making a buck is not the only motivation for most people. And personally, I don't want anyone who is driven exclusively by the pursuit of profit making decisions about my healthcare. It should be obvious why, but I'll elaborate: for such a person given the choice between greater profit for them or better health for me, I will lose 100% of the time.
Post #345,773 by Another Scott 8/5/11 1:51:24 PM Reply	Some good points. But NASA does a lot more than LEO. LEO == low earth orbit. http://www.nasa.gov/.../sites/index.html Even if some companies throw stuff up to the ISS instead of NASA doing it itself, that doesn't mean that all of NASA is going away. There's too much cutting edge stuff that companies still aren't going to do (hypersonics, deep space, earth sensing, etc., etc.). Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,946 by mhuber 8/8/11 12:32:18 PM Reply	Vision statements When I was a corporate drone, I used to catch a lot of attitude about the vision statements I wrote. Because they always started (at least the first draft, before I got "corrected") with some variation on "make money by..." Because that is really what it is all about. And a lot of people seem to forget it, both inside and outside the company. Forgetting it outside the company leads to unwarranted trust. Forgetting it inside leads to waste and failed efforts. It is not a fault of corporations that they are there to make money any more than it is a fault of a lion that its function is to kill. It is a fault of the population when it decides lions are cute and cuddly and ought to be kept in the house - i.e. votes Republican. --------------------------------------- Badass! (and delicious)

Welcome to IWETHEY!