Skip to main content

I'll repeat that: the kerfuffle over the President's budget proposal isn't about chained CPI, benefit cuts, means testing of entitlements, etc.

It's about something potentially much more damaging to progressives and the Democratic Party brand.

The President's budget proposal communicates a simple fact: that the Administration has wholly accepted the Republican frame that deficit reduction matters more than stimulus and job creation.  It's that simple.

That's not what Democrats ran on in 2012.  And that does not bode well going forward.

It's one thing, in the course of budget negotiations to strike a "grand bargain" to consider cuts to entitlement in exchange for more revenue.  But it's quite another to make that the opening salvo in your vision for a budget going forward.

When it comes to chained CPI, I'm truly undecided.  I've heard arguments on both sides that make sense to me.  But what I do know is that it's not something I'd be opening the discussion with, in any sense of the word.  I know that "Hey, we've helped to preserve Social Security by indexing your cost of living increases to a more realistic measure of inflation, but it does cut your overall monthly benefit" does not fit on a bumper sticker, or makes for a great message come 2014.

Here we are, a month from the start of the sequester, and we are slowly starting to see the effects.  Just today, we are told job growth is slowing.  The sequester was a gamble that we lost on, frankly.  We could be proposing a budget that says "we won in 2012" and truly expands the playing field of job growth and stimulus, as well as keep the promise of increasing taxes on the wealthy.

The Republicans in the House, of course, would reject that, just like they rejected the President's budget today because it called for more revenue.  But at least that budget would not have put entitlements on the table.

This is about something broader...not a single issue.  It's about what they used to call the "vision thing".  Truly, the President doesn't have to worry about reelection.  He's free from the bonds of being on a ballot ever again.  So why not go big now? Go bigger than he has before?

Hell, why not just live up to the promise the President made just months ago? When he took the oath of office for a second term, stood on the steps of the Capitol, and said the following:

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
Precisely.  We beat back that makers/takers BS in 2012.  So why are we putting it back on the table?  Why play in their sandbox?

It's time to take the sandbox back.  It's not about chained CPI.  It's about our values, and how we frame them, and the policies we propose to make it happen.

And we can't do that if we accept the Paul Ryan worldview as a starting point.  Unfortunately, by putting possible entitlement cuts on the table, the perception is that Democrats are at least partially willing to accept part of that worldview.

Forget this Kabuki, Mr. President. It's time to go big or go home.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand your argument. (8+ / 0-)

    although I think the brand will survive, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't.  my Party isn't sacrosanct.  I wouldn't have been a member of it, had I been born even half a century sooner than I was.  Parties change.  that's fine.  

    progressive hero FDR signed off on a SS plan that didn't cover my great-grandmothers. a plan that was deliberately made that way to get DEMOCRATIC votes.  yet you don't hear a lot of older black folks castigating him for that fact.  you don't hear black people of my generation claiming that he didn't care about us, as a result.  you don't see black people making that point, except perhaps to get people to have a little perspective as regards this president, and what he does.

    frankly I find the whole "soul of the party" thing to be completely overwrought, and out of touch with how non-political junkies think.

    again though... I understand this argument, even if I don't emotionally react to it.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 10:54:16 AM PDT

    •  edit: (0+ / 0-)
      you don't see black people making that point
      should read:

      you don't see black people making the point I just did

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so what party would you have been (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, 3goldens

      part of a half century ago?

      this is a genuine question.

      •  the same as MLK (4+ / 0-)

        Sr. and Jr.

        George Wallace, on the other hand, was a Democrat.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Republicans changed when (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mallyroyal, FindingMyVoice

          Dems supported civil rights.  1948 was a big year.  The Dixiecrats.  FDR was pressured by the RR union guy, Randolph, to do an executive order ending discrimination in fed defense jobs, but a lot before that was bad.  Social Security deliverately left out domestic workers, which meant many black workers in the south were outside it.

          Wallace was not a good example because by the early 1960s, Dems outside the south were supporting civil rights.  Goldwater won much of the Deep South in 1964.

          But certainly beofre 1948 and maybe for parts of the 50s, Dems were not very good.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:30:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  right, but my point stands. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, lcj98, FindingMyVoice

            all this "soul of the party" and "brand of the party" is BS to my ears.  

            things change, is the only constant.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:34:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree. If there were a more viable left party (4+ / 0-)

              I would join it.  Things do change.  

              I hear you.

              Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

              by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:40:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  All things do not change. (0+ / 0-)

              The people who supported the King of England in the American revolution were the same people who started the Civil War and who own the corporations (don't mistake corporations for anything other than the very few people who own and profit profusely from them, the same people who steal all productivity for their own personal gain).

              The protesters against the American Revolution have never stopped hating Americans and have profited greatly from all types of slavery. Now they've purchased people like Frank Luntz to distort and confuse our language.

              "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

              by BrianParker14 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 03:31:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of blacks were Repubs back then (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      Assuming they were even allowed to vote. And FDR's "grand bargain" was arguably necessary back then in the era of Jim Crow and Dixiecrats, which is not true today. What is necessary about cuts to entitlements?

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:23:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (4+ / 0-)
        And FDR's "grand bargain" was arguably necessary back then in the era of Jim Crow and Dixiecrats, which is not true today.
        so... obstruction by dixiecrats must be bargained with

        but not obstruction by tea partiers?

        you MUST explain to me how that works.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:38:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the electorate FDR faced was less diverse (0+ / 0-)

          much whiter, more Protestant, more conservative. He therefore had to be much more wary, because the right was far more powerful back then.

          He could not have won any of his elections without those Southern Democrats supporting him.

          Obama's in the 21st century. The electorate he is facing is much more diverse--not only ethnically, but in religion, gender, and age. The fastest growing demographics in American politics are Hispanic- and Asian-Americans.

          The Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan is no longer viable. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in one of the last six presidential elections. Obama is facing an electorate that is much more open to making significant changes. He doesn't need the support of white conservatives to advance his legislative agenda or even to get elected.

          The tea party has no power that Obama doesn't give it. They're a ghost, they represent a shrinking minority. The American electorate overwhelmingly repudiates what they stand for. If Obama stamped his foot, the ghost would vanish and we'd see how powerless they really are.

          The 1% give them funding and free media airtime to make them look more powerful, but it's like a pufferfish taking in water to make it seem bigger and more threatening than it is.

          Obama chooses not to banish the ghost, because the ghost gives him political cover to do what he wants to do--namely, advance the Wall Street agenda of privatizing the government. He can kill the public option and blame it on the teabaggers. He can slash the stimulus and pack it with tax cuts, and blame it on the Republicans. Lather, rinse, repeat.

          Obama is a skillful politician, all right--but you're mistaken about whom he's working for. He's not working for the poor--quite the opposite.

          That is, in a nutshell, how it works.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:03:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe we have learned? (0+ / 0-)

          NOT to bargain with them?

          Especially when there is no reason too?

          Why is it necessary about cuts to entitlements?

        •  An overwhelming majority of Americans (0+ / 0-)

          across the political and ideological spectrum opposed cuts to any of these programs, something that was not true of making Social Security color-blind in the 30's. The forces of segregation were profoundly more powerful and numerous back then than are the forces calling for austerity.

          And your argument also only makes sense to someone who thinks that a grand bargain--ANY grand bargain--is necessary or wise, as opposed to kicking the can down the road with a series of CRs or status quo budgets until we have the votes to pass something progressive. You support a grand bargain? Why? Why do we have to "go big" when we're at a disadvantage? Unlike the 30's, we're not trying to pass something progressive, which is impossible now, but rather avoid anything regressive passing. All Obama has to do is do nothing to make that happen, or, at most, veto anything regressive.

          You really think the public's going to side with Repubs if he does that?

          There is no political advantage to giving away the New Deal. None. And every disadvantage in doing so. He's not doing this for political gain. He's doing this because he WANTS a grand bargain, and thus these cuts.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:19:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that it can be overwrought. (4+ / 0-)

      I doubt most folsk understand what chained cpi is.  And many of the amateur political scientists commenting around here don't  have the best track record, partly because they predict the same thing regardless of what happens (Obama is destroying us!  Bad, etc.)

      I think this is bad policy and wish Obama had not proposed it.  But Boehner rejected it and it is DOA.  

      Good to see you, mally.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He Can't Legislate Without the House. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Catte Nappe

    I'm more pessimistic about him than most but he doesn't have the power to pass economic stimulus.

    There've been 2 encouraging signs this week. We got the first billionaire ever who's willing to all-out fight for a progressive issue, in his case climate change response, and today it's out that the WH will be aggressively campaigning to help win back the house in 2014.

    Considering their catastrophic lameness in 2009-10, this is a very encouraging sign.

    Of course if we've given away chained CPI and some other things in the meantime then it will be something of a Pyrrhic victory.

    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 Apr 05, 2013 at 10:58:08 AM PDT

  •  More importantly its the debt. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, PhilJD

    The deficit adds to the debt, reducing the deficit reduces what is added to the debt.   But the debt can never be paid off, never.  It will keep rising.  No matter what they agree upon for a budget going forward, the debt will rise, the interest on the debt will rise.   Projections indicate the interest on the national debt could be around one trillion per year in another 10 to 15 years.  Straight off the top.  The US will never balance a budget with that debt.   It's all a trap by the plutocracy, the central bankers, just as in Europe.  Debt bondage.

    "I'm an antiwar propagandist as accused by democrats. Not even republicans have called me that."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:09:35 AM PDT

  •  Agree with the basic thrust of the diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, stevej

    Once again the inside the beltway Dems are playing on the turf of the GOP and the "serious adult" pundits.

    For once can we lead with a Democratic budget reflecting Democratic ideals? And at least promote the ideas of job growth and trying to help the average worker and families first?

    Then if we end up compromising to something that includes a discussion of chained CPI then at least we know we are in there fighting for what we believe in and getting what we can get. More importantly the ideas of a progressive Democratic party - ideas that not only are more fair but have actually been shown to work and not be destructive, will be getting more of a hearing in the general public.

    Blue is blue and must be that. But yellow is none the worse for it - Edith Sidebottom

    by kenwards on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:10:09 AM PDT

  •  I don't like chained cpi, so I'm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Nattiq

    not neutral on that.  Overall, I think you make a good point.  I think this is about replacing the sequester with half revenue and half cuts, so it does not increase austerity.  

    But it does have the potential to frame things in the way you describe.  Boehner already rejected it, so the Grand Bargain is DOA.  

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:21:12 AM PDT

    •  Yup, on all counts. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, KenBee, peregrine kate

      Disagree with diarist that chained CPI is a more realistic measure of inflation. It's not. If some people start buying sirloin instead of rib eyes and hamburger instead of sirloin, that does NOT mean that beef prices haven't been inflated. It just means that folks are accepting a lower quality of life.

      Chained CPI is a government hocus-pocus trick.

      How do I know? Look around and show me where it's used other than  (proposed) government programs.

      If it were a true measure of inflation, it would have been adopted by the real world (private sector) a long time ago.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:29:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seniors cant substitute as easily if at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover

        Medications, medical care, nursing homes. Most arent capable of driving around looking for cheaper deals.

        CPI-E is designed to calculate CPI for seniors.

        ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS 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 Apr 05, 2013 at 03:24:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't see Obama doing any of this (4+ / 0-)

    He's shown every sign of being someone who merely wants to LOOK like the next FDR or Lincoln without actually being one. I think he wants to go down as the Dem Reagan, as someone remembered for doing things he didn't actually do, by people either unable or unwilling to realize it. We're living in the era of post-reality, be it in lit crit academic circles or on cable TV. Actually real things don't matter anymore, not to leaders at least. Only things that appear to be real matter, and when they prove to not be real, some other illusion is brought in to misdirect from and replace them.

    We live in the era of bright shiny non-objects, and Obama is its president.

    Put in the context of these cuts and their political, economic and human impact, I don't think he cares about the things many of us care about, namely retaking the house with bigger progressive numbers, beating the GOP politically and on policy, and passing good progressive policy. I think he cares about his image among the Morning Joe crowd, and taking care of his biggest donors.

    The rest of us simply do not register. At all.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:21:22 AM PDT

    •  Explain? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover
      We're living in the era of post-reality, be it in lit crit academic circles
      Not busting your chops, just curious...
      •  Wait... (0+ / 0-)

        I though it was post-racial?  Y'all can't be changing the posts like that without a warning!

        The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

        by lcj98 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:04:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the reference to "reality" shows (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Jazz at High Noon

        is self-explanatory, I think. As for lit crit, I'm talking about the trend towards post-structuralism and post-post-structuralism in academia since the 80's, in which nothing is really what it seems and everything can be deconstructed. Done properly this is can be valuable and necessary. But this can be abused to justify a sort of post-modern reality, in which reality is what you make of it. There was that famous quote from a top Bush official about how they made their own reality. Well, I think that Obama's taken it to a new level, in which, for example, he pats himself on the back for being so transparent even as his administration is anything but, or calls for cuts to entitlement programs even as he promises to "save" it. Perhaps this is just plain old dissembling, but they do it so smoothly that it almost seems like an academic project.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:13:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i disagree, it's not about deficit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq, KenBee, ursofakingwetoded

    reduction at all. not about SS either.

    it's about the republicans obstructing literally everything.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:22:54 AM PDT

    •  So we should just GIVE them stuff? (0+ / 0-)
      •  did they accept? (0+ / 0-)

        do you understand what i am saying here?  republicans are not in a position to accept anything.  they can't let him pass legislation, even if it's their ideas.

        They have had the same strategy since 2009.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:57:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes I understand what you are saying (0+ / 0-)

          Are YOU saying I am some kind of moron?

          What precisely do WE gain by offering them something that will alienate OUR BASE and curtail any gains we might make converting seniors from Repub to dem?

          In other words, since you are so much smarter than me....WHY? Why would Obama propose something so insultingly injurious?

          Or is insulting people part of the Obama playbook, since both he and you seem to get so much joy out of it?

          •  again did it pass? (0+ / 0-)

            republicans accuse us of this and more every election. they lie all the time. whether we cut medicare or are going to kill grandma.  we still won.

            your answer is to play ball in the public square. to sway the audience there.  

            not at home.

            those that pay attention, knew the republicans couldn't accept a deal, any deal.  making is sweet for them and reasonable to the media, is playing the game better than they did with their obstruction.  

            obstruction which isn't talked about on the news every night but even though they should.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:08:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So even someone with your staggering intellect (0+ / 0-)

              Can't answer this simple question, eh?

              In other words, since you are so much smarter than me....WHY? Why would Obama propose something so insultingly injurious?
              I am not interested in your slimy evasions, just tell me why he would make the offer in the first place.
  •  This is incredibly dumb politics. Does PBO even (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nailbanger, Chi

    care about Democratic 2014 prospects?

    Who votes in non-Presidential years?  The base and older folks.

    Who's most likely to be alienated by the chained CPI proposal?  The base and older folks.  (Go to Salon to read about a poll about what folks 50 & older think about this proposal.)

    Did PBO learn nothing in 2010 or does nothing matter to him other than the dimwit VSP's seeing him as the only mature person in the room (which, of course, is a ludicrously jejune goal)?  

    Thanks, Barry.  IMO, you just ensured that the House will be controlled by the barbarians until 2023.  Nice legacy.

    "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

    by Oliver St John Gogarty on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:40:00 AM PDT

  •  The sequester is already fωking over Medicare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ursofakingwetoded

    and Obama is after SS as well.

    This is what happens when you elect a president who admires Ronald Reagan and is steeped in Chicago school economics.

    But hey -- anybody other than Hillary...

    •  Obama is a Clintonite. What's the diff? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl

      There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

      by srkp23 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:20:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You seem to have forgotten 2008 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        srkp23

        when Hillary was a horrible dynastic old nutcracker and Obama was the progressive rock star.

        •  not at all. it's just that it's 2013 now (0+ / 0-)

          and now we all know (or should) that Obama is basically the same old news politically, and that the real import of his double-election is the social breakthrough of electing a "minority."

          I believed in his original campaign and believed him. I've voted for him twice--the first time with true enthusiasm and hope, the second, because I felt no other, better choice.

          but it is what it is. The real workings of power are just too in your face now with the overt corporatization of American politics. To be sure, there are some achievements that make material difference in the lives of many, but in the main the agenda is to shore up the status quo--i.e., keep the wealth and power right where they are. The whole stinking system is now "TBTF"--must sacrifice everything to keep the power distribution as is.

          There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

          by srkp23 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:42:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He's always been a Clintonite. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        srkp23

        But lots of Dems like that.  

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:41:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I couldn't agree more (0+ / 0-)

      Bill is out there championing BS bullshit. She will be just another moderate right wing democrat. And I also agree that nothing this president offers will ever be embraced by the mouth breathers so why try. I want Sherrod Brown for POTUS. He will already carry Ohio, is a good progressive, smart, plain spoken, disheveled hair, raspy voice. I think the guy should hire the 2 Davids and start running now. Hillary will be worse than Obama.

      " these are questions for wise men with skinny arms " Dothraki warlord Khal Drogo

      by ursofakingwetoded on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:11:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think many of us are ignoring the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ursofakingwetoded

    "grand bargain" part of the rhetoric and missing it's significance.

    When I read this it suggests to me that at this point what's even more concerning to the POTUS than the economy is his fears about the complete breakdown of democracy when there is a completely unviable opposition party gumming up the works of day-day government.

    Now, that doesn't mean I agree with the POTUS's assessment should this assessment be the case, but it does make me wonder if some of the logic that is going into this economics policy is not, in fact, about economics at all, but something else.  That would mean, contrary to those who assume the POTUS is clandestinely on the side of the 1% here, that maybe the POTUS is thinking about something fundamentally different from economic policy when he is making these decisions.

    That would suggest he is far less concerned about the economy than those of us who are struggling in the economy would want him to be, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he's in this to benefit the 1%.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

    •  If the President is indeed concerned about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevej, a gilas girl

      "democracy," the crackdown of his Justice Department on whistle-blowers and his own embrace of the Secrecy & Security State is a rather unusual way to demonstrate it.

      Nor is democracy strengthened by unreciprocated concessions to the wingers. Mr. Obama has had ample time and ample evidence to learn that the only way to strengthen American democracy--in the short term anyway--is to completely marginalize the lunatics and let democracy flourish in truly open democratic primaries.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:11:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They did support this frame before 2012. (0+ / 0-)

    I hate chained CPI but you can't claim that concern about deficit wasn't there until a few months ago.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site