Skip to main content

View Diary: POTUS and Rep. Pelosi Announce Plans to Win Back the House (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  No I don't think so. (26+ / 0-)

      A Dem House would negate the need for the Chained CPI bargaining chip.
      Or are you one of the folks who believes POTUS is a huge fan of austerity? I could be wrong but I really don't believe that.

      I ♥ President Barack Obama.

      by ericlewis0 on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:09:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hard to Say, But Remember Social Security "Crisis" (16+ / 0-)

        was a terminology he used numerous times during his 08 run. It's too close to take for granted.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:18:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be incredibly stupid (12+ / 0-)

          that's why I worry about it.  We don't need that albatross this election cycle.  Convincing people to vote Dem during the ongoing bad economy is hard enough.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:22:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama is an albatross on the D Party... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Medium Head Boy, offgrid, ferment

            ...I do what I can to convince people that it's sensible to vote for good Democrats for the House, state legislatures, etc., but all too many just go "Obama's a disaster, I won't vote for any Democrat".

            It drives me nuts.  We shouldn't be losing good Congressmen and losing state houses with good people in them just because Obama's decided to act like a Republican.

            •  Obama has done nothing to (5+ / 0-)

              diminish my support for him. I think that he has done an incredible job against insanely determined opposition from both Republican know-nothings and the hollier than thou Democrats.

              I would have done a few things differently, but overall his performance has been exemplary. He has brought the economy back from the brink of disaster, he has championed LGBT rights more than all the Presidents who preceded him, he saved the auto industry and millions of jobs, he has fought for the rights of women, he has kept us safe from many terrorist plots, he got Bin Laden, he has restructured our health care system to both expand greatly the number of people who qualify for health insurance while improving coverage for everyone and he reduced premiums in the process.

              What more can you ask of one man?

              Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

              by OIL GUY on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 11:16:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "What more can you ask of one man?" (4+ / 0-)

                Well, seeing as he's not some ordinary guy walking down the street, he's like, the president, a lot actually.

                People seem to forget the President himself said:

                We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.
                So those "holier-than-thou Democrats" you mention really aren't doing anything that should be treated with this kind of derision.

                 




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
                ~ Jerry Garcia

                by DeadHead on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 01:25:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Obeying the Bill of Rights. (0+ / 0-)

                Not much to ask, is it?

        •  As someone researched awhile back (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox, dfarrah, splashoil

          The Democratic Party actually changed the party platform to diminish their commitment to Social Security.  

      •  You should spend less time believing (18+ / 0-)

        and more time judging on the basis of, you know, actual behavior.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:19:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No offense, but (18+ / 0-)

        Obama put the chained CPI out there because he likes the idea.  He believes in austerity and outsourcing to the private sector, its part of the ridiculous neoliberal creed he believes in.  

        I can work on
        getting Kasich replaced by a Dem
        getting as many Dems as possible elected to Congress in my part of the state and,
        getting as many Dems as possible elected to the statehouse in my part of the state

         or

        I can work on
        getting Kasich replaced by a Dem and,
        getting as many Dems as possible elected to the statehouse in my part of the state
        getting a Dem elected in my Congressional district

        Take your pick. My time and resources are valuable and I don't like to waste it helping candidates run on a platform of cutting SS and Medicare

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:20:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's the manchurian austerian, don't you know? (16+ / 0-)

        Adjusted for inflation, the entirety of the stimulus package is by some accounts reported to be larger than the New Deal, per GDP, but the President is supposedly an austerian underneath that? Yes, the stimulus wasn't big enough still (neither was the New Deal). But underneath the stimulus, the guy is an austerian?

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:24:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the stimulus wasn't big enough. (9+ / 0-)

          Even one of his advisers told him so.  She's not longer there.

          •  The stimulus was as big as he could get from (13+ / 0-)

            congress.

            In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

            by Sixty Something on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:07:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody was talking $2 to $3 trillion (6+ / 0-)

            Which is how large economists such as Robert Reich estimate it needed to be. But even Robert Reich would tell you the unfortunate downside to Keynesian economics is that it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.

            This has been litigated endlessly since 2009. No, the stimulus technically wasn't big enough. And no, the Administration had no idea to what degree the economy was contracting based on initial GDP reports.

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:26:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Incorrect, Romer: 1.8 trillion, Reich: 700 billion (4+ / 0-)

              No one was higher than Romer, Dean Baker was talking about 1.2 trillion...

              Reich called for 500 to 700 billion, Nov. 24th, 2008.

              it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.
              Actually you count the contraction in dollars, and just put the dollars back in, in the form of stim.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The the ARRA was bigger than what Reich said? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, Tony Situ, aitchdee

                Robert Reich is pretty progressive. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, other than the President ended up with a stimulus package larger than what a progressive like Robert Reich called for.

                Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:14:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You are correct. Chrstine Romer asked for (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, gooderservice

            1.8 trillion, about 8% of GDP, almost exactly what FDR spent in his first term.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're embarassing yourself, please stop. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OIL GUY, aitchdee

              In 1933, total federal spending was 9.05% of GDP.

              In 2009, total federal spending was 25.17% of GDP.

              Was all of what FDR spent in 1933 the New Deal...?

              So scurry along now. You're in way over your head here.

              Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

              by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:13:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you saying Romer didnt ask for 1.8 trillion? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice

                .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Compare 1933 & 1938 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice

                whats the difference?

                .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  1933 = Keynsianism stimulus, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Onomastic, aitchdee

                  1938 = David Cameron style austerity.

                  But that doesn't prove that Obama should have spent in 2009 the same amount as FDR spent in 1933, since FDR was facing much larger problem that had been going on for three years.

                  •  Forget about FDR (0+ / 0-)

                    the issue is measuring what happened in 2009, and fitting a solution scaled to the problem. NO?

                    The entire ARRA was 787 billion, including tax cuts. Thats 5,2% of GDP.

                    U6 peaked at 17.2%, thats about 27 million jobs. Using a multiplier of 2, spending 1.4 trillion would create 28 million jobs.. Thats 9.3% of GDP.

                    Christine Romer wanted to spend 1.8 trillion - Dean Baker 1.2 trillion, they got these numbers by, in part measuring the contraction in jobs.

                    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                    by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 11:32:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  FDR faced greater than 20% unemployment. (0+ / 0-)

              FDR was trying to get out of the Great Depression that had been going on for 3 years (an effort that did not totally succeed (didn't come close, actually), but was valiant and did significantly lessen the Depression until FDR's 1937 austerity reversed the progress leading to a huge economic downturn).

              Obama, on the other hand, faced not 20%+ unemployment, but 10% (at it's peak).  And he wasn't trying to exit a Great Depression, he was instead trying to prevent a Great Depression (succeeding) and then recover from the Great Recession (failing so far, we've had partial recovery at too slow a pace, not total recovery, though some projections look promising).  

              It's questionable to suggest that Obama should spend as much on his stimulus as FDR spent on the New Deal (by whatever measure you want to use (NoFortunateSon's post suggests that using "percentage of GDP" as the measuring stick is faulty)), since the problems they faced were different in both degree and kind.

              Let me put it this way: Were FDR president in 2009, he wouldn't have spent what he spent in 1933.  Because the problems were different.

        •  Tell it to the 12% of Americans who are (7+ / 0-)

          unemployed or underemployed, the ones whose SS benefits he wants to cut when they retire.  

          Obama may have pulled off a miracle in 2012 when he ran for re-election with a shitty economy and high unemployment.  It would be a massive mistake if he and his ardent supporters assume he can pull off an even bigger stunt in 2014.  Tell him to take his sadistic impulses elsewhere.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:51:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think it was a "miracle." (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, deep info

            I equate it to Bush being reelected in 2004, even though he lied us into war.

            If there had been a stronger candidate than Romney, I think he would have lost.  Romney was a joke.  I don't know, maybe a lot of people considered Kerry a joke, too. The republicans successfully swift-boated Kerry.

            Oh, and some/many people who voted for Bush's reelection thought Bush was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam era.

          •  I love how they keep thinking he's a fluke... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ericlewis0, Onomastic, Tony Situ, aitchdee

            Like he pulled off some kind of miracle in 2008 and 2012.

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:31:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The other day, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox, 3goldens

            I can't recall, some popular writer was saying how much of a tragedy that the BO presidency is - supposedly, the Bush administration was supporting some sort of mortgage relief, but BO nixed the plan.  

            I'm wondering if efforts by BO would worsen the chances of democrats.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:40:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This (5+ / 0-)

              http://delong.typepad.com/...

              The source for the report is Barney Frank.

              •  Thanks. (4+ / 0-)

                All those people losing their homes who didn't have to....

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:05:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Good report from Barney Frank about Obama. (0+ / 0-)

                I had actually missed that one.

              •  I'm confused. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tony Situ, aitchdee, sviscusi

                According to the piece you linked to, President Obama didn't even know about the mortgage relief proposal. His people didn't tell him about it.

                The mortgage crisis was worsened this past time because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. We voted the TARP out. The TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame duck, and I was disappointed. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first resisted that, he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he would have had to ask for a second chunk, he said, all right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for that second chunk and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it.  This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn’t do it.
                http://delong.typepad.com/...

                I was curious so I read the entire New Yorker Magazine article piece you linked to supposedly quoted.  They and you seem to have left out a few things.

                Here's the entire quote.

                The mortgage crisis was worsened because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame-duck presidency. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first ­resisted—he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he said, “All right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for a second chunk, and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it.” This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him, and they wouldn’t do it. During the critical period when the TARP was being administered, there was a vacuum of political leadership. At one point, Obama said, “Well, we only have one president at a time.” I said I was afraid that overstated the number of presidents. We had no president.
                [empahsis added]

                http://nymag.com/...

                It was Barney Frank, pushing for help for home owners, not Bush.  Barack Obama would not be sworn in as President for a month, and his advisers hadn't told him about any plan for mortgage relief for homeowners.

                And yet, he's somehow to blame for this?

                Now I may be missing something, but that's stretching things a bit, isn't it?

                "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

                by Onomastic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:32:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just like the Tea Party (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tony Situ

                  The Liar Blog Fake crowd live in their own reality.

                  Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                  by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:12:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Obama is a lead weight on the Dems. (0+ / 0-)

              It hasn't been noticed by a lot of people yet.

              I find that I spend my political activism time saying "Look, I know you don't like Obama, but your local Democratic state senator is not Obama, vote for him anyway".

          •  U6 is 13.8% 'bout 22 million (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:09:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "Obama is a sadist!" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, aitchdee

            "Obama loves inflicting pain just for his own perverse pleasures."  Is that the latest progressive talking point?  Is there no line you guys won't cross in your character assassinations?

        •  and much of the stimulus money... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice, 3goldens, deep info

          ..when to people who are rich already.  IE bankers.

          We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

          by delver rootnose on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:03:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And what has he done since? (6+ / 0-)

          Since then, he has made deficit reduction his prime goal.  Deficit reduction = austerity

          Unless you were hibernating during the summer of 2011, there is no way to deny that Obama is a champion of austerity.

          If Obama was not a supporter of austerity, then he would agree with John Conyers that we need to repeal the line of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that enacted sequestration.  Obama does not want to do that.  He wants to replace it with cuts to Social Security and Medicare and extract chump change from the rich (and we all know that the tax increases will be undone in the future but the benefits never restored).

          Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan (of which he still spoke highly) not because it took an axe to the welfare state, but because it cut military spending too much for his liking.

          •  So he was for stimulus before he was against it? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, OIL GUY, aitchdee

            What changed between 2009 and 2011? Hmmmm......

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:34:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Simpson-Bowles was created BEFORE 2010 election (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (or Simpson-Bowles Commission) was created in April 2010, i.e. before the 2010 election.  Obama had already moved to austerity mode.  It was not a response to the 2010 election.

              •  So what changed? (0+ / 0-)

                Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:18:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If I had to guess (0+ / 0-)

                  He did the stimulus out of necessary because the economy was seriously tanking.  However, as soon as that was over, the self-described Blue Dog Democrat (http://my.firedoglake.com/...) wanted to shift the focus to deficit reduction, which was a larger priority for him.  He may have drunk his own Kool-Aid and though he would actually usher in an age of "post-partisanship" and thought that deficit reduction would be the best issue for that.  He had, however, begun to talk about cutting Social Security and Medicare even before taking office, but he couldn't move on those policies while the economy was seriously in the gutter.  

        •  I've heard the New Deal claim & its Horse Hockey (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, deep info, gooderservice

          During FDR's first term Fed Gov spending went from 10% of GDP to 20% of GDP. SO the New Deal cost at least 8% of GDP. Which is why Christine Romer asked for 1.8 trillion in stim, about 8% of GDP.

          Government spending at the start of the 20th century was less than 7 percent of GDP. It vaulted to almost 30 percent of GDP by the end of World War I, and then settled down to 10 percent of GDP in the 1920s. In the 1930s spending doubled to 20 percent of GDP.
          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...
          If we count the entire ARRA spending of 500 billion, thats 3.35% of GDP.

          The reality is only 170 billion was spent on infrastructure, about 1.7% of GDP in 2010, and 1.3% in 2011.

          Republicans like to exaggerate the amount spent to show the stim wasnt effective and to generally deride Keynesian Economics. But typically Infrastructure gets a multiplier of 2.5.

          170 billion spent on  infrastructure in 2010-2011 created 4.2 million jobs as the White House noted. Yes, the Stimulus worked as advertised.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:50:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your calculations are incorrect (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OIL GUY, aitchdee, sviscusi

            The total cost of the ARRA was closer to one trillion.

            Plus, you're comparing total Federal spending under FDR to just Stimulus spending under Obama.

            Use the correct numbers, and go back and recalculate.

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:56:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh cockleshells (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deep info

              You got no links, just an opinion, so you think Wiki is wrong?

              That is some funny shit.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:13:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your Google machine is broken? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OIL GUY, aitchdee

                Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:17:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  787 billion minus 288 billion in tax cuts= (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, gooderservice
                  The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax incentives equaling $288 billion and $144 billion, or 18%, is allocated to state and local fiscal relief (more than 90% of the state aid is going to Medicaid and education). The remaining 45%, or $357 billion, is allocated to federal spending programs such as transportation, communication, waste water and sewer infrastructure improvements; energy efficiency upgrades in private and federal buildings; extension of federal unemployment benefits; and scientific research programs.
                  144 billion plus 357 billion is 501 billion in spending programs.

                  Of which only about 170 billion are infrastructure dollars.

                  .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:30:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Tax cuts are stimulative (0+ / 0-)

                    Not as stimulative as infrastructure, but stimulative nonetheless. You don't get to fudge the numbers.

                    Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                    by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:06:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, let's say that a Dem House (9+ / 0-)

        would not vote for chained CPI, although several Dems, including Pelosi, have voiced support for chained CPI.

        But let's pretend that the House does not vote for chained CPI.

        But let's do remember that the filibuster rules have not changed in the Senate.  So if the House passes a bill that doesn't include chained CPI, and the Senate votes for it, and it goes to conference, what happens then?

        And the answer to your question here is absolutely YES.

        Or are you one of the folks who believes POTUS is a huge fan of austerity?
        I don't arrive at that belief just because of nothing, I come to that belief based on numerous things Obama has advocated either for or against.

        And I'm hope I'm wrong, too.

        And the phrase "huge fan," is another matter.  He's for it.  Is he a huge fan?  I don't know, but I do know he's all in for austerity.

        •  And austerity is a discredited remedy (4+ / 0-)

          Apparently Obama and his crowd have bought into some ridiculous Third Way powerpoint presentation with magic algebra and "focus groups" instead of real polling data telling them this time, Reaganomics can be sold to the voting public.

          They're probably hoping to sell this junk public policy to low information voters, but its a big stretch to think they can replace large chunks of the Dem base with an unknown quantity of low info folks and still win in 2014.  Or maybe they don't really want to win Congress.

          If we continue to see this level of stupidity at the national level of the Dem Party, maybe we should forget the idea of trying to win back Congress and focus on state and local elections.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:11:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It certainly will be interesting to see how (4+ / 0-)

            Dems will "win back the House."  Frankly, I think it's just a meme now to keep on track for that goal.  Never mind that the Dems are as poor at messaging as they recently have been.

            So far the message I've heard from DNC, DSCC, the DCCC is:  Republicans are awful, send us money .

            •  And the money goes to the awful Dems (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, deep info, gooderservice

              Take for instance the vote yesterday on Steve King's amendment to defund the DREAM-lite program.  Three Democrats---Barrow, McIntyre, and Rahall--joined the Republicans in voting for it.  The DCCC sends out its routine "O my gosh, the Republicans are awful!" fundraising email and will then give the money to the same Dems that JUST VOTED FOR THE BILL THEY ARE CRITICIZING.

              The same works for the student loan legislation, too. And just about every single vote.

              •  DCCC/DSCC/DNC support awful Ds, yes (0+ / 0-)

                Nobody should ever give money to them.  They're basically run by Republicans as far as I can tell.

                There are still good Democratic candidates.  The DCCC/DSCC/DNC put money into primaries to fight AGAINST the good Democratic candidates.  

                I think we need to organize our own committees.

              •  I haven't sent a dime to (2+ / 0-)

                the DNC since the day they kicked out Howard Dean, and can't remember when I sent to the DSCC or DCCC, if ever. After way too many times watching one of the national committees parachute into a House or Senate race with no regard for what the local activists are trying to tell them, I consider them arrogant money-wasters.

                No one who is as involved in politics as the typical Kossack should be depending on these entities to make their funding decisions for them. You know which candidates you want to support. And here's Act Blue to help you do it. I choose which candidates will get money from me.

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 03:46:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  How many times? (4+ / 0-)

        How many times does the President need to offer proposals to cut Social Security for people to actually believe that THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO?  Obama loyalists, elite centrists, and conservatives all regularly deny the fact that he genuinely wants to cut Social Security benefits although he has expressed the desire to do so back in his first term (and before).  

        Remember--he started his deficit commission BEFORE the 2010 shellacking.  It was, like everything he has done, a choice.

      •  I just received a letter from the President (6+ / 0-)

        today in response to my message to him that the only acceptable modification to Social Security is raising the cap.
        In a pretty long-winded response that, of course, went out to tens of thousands he focused almost entirely on deficit reduction -- as if I hadn't told him that I didn't care one whit about deficit reduction -- and said, "To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we must address the rising cost of health care for an aging population.  The Affordable Care Act is helping us meet that challenge, and the entitlement reforms I have proposed would take us even further. "

        I don't think he's giving up on the chained CPI, so those new members of Congress that give him the majority, they better be better Democrats.

        The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

        by Alice Olson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:20:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have you not been paying attention? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, deep info

        Of course the Democrats support austerity. If they didn't, why are they spending all this energy reaching a "Grand Bargain" that includes such nonsense?

        What fucking planet do I live on? Is this just a new make-believe world where Democrats are constantly playing eleventy-thrice dimension chess and we're supposed to follow along?

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:15:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site