Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

What benefit of the doubt? Either way, whether they are willing to let the economy fail to win an election or whether they are willing to let it fail because of ideology, it is bad.

 

Neither does that mean that the Republican-controlled Congress should get a suck pass either.

 

I just skimmed the article and will reread it again in more detail but this seems very speculative on the part of Greenwald that Obama is actually a mastermind determined to cut social spending to appease corporate donors. Given the usual criticism of Obama is one that he is too cautious this would seem a very about shift to Obama's MO and one that might be giving Obama more Machiavellian credit than he is due.

Obama has agreed to talk about the reforms to the tax code, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which on the surface shouldn't be surprising as his own deficit cutting commission recommended those things. Also without knowing the details of what sort of changes will be made it seems speculative to raise the alarm about this now.

I am inclined to agree with Pgabriel here that this seems more like a political move on Obama's part to put pressure on the Republicans than the revealing of some secret plan to gut the New Deal Great Society programs.

 

What does this crap even mean? Because you go to Harvard that you're a corporatist? Now we don't celebrate that obama went to harvard on merit. and secondly obama never claimed to be liberal. that's one of the biggest misnomers.

this is just liberal fantasy fail. obama gets a health care bill passed, and greenwald is still complaining that's it not enough in this article. he got don't ask don't tell repealed through legislation.

there are no specifics on medicare or social security cuts. its an idea floated out last night and already greewald is on his i don't have to actually deal with republicans high horse. i can't believe this guy just totally ignores the politcal climate.

 

True, but he's said a lot of things as a candidate that he has failed to acknowledge. I faintly remember something about...transparency? of...government for example?

As a liberal, I'm happy about Obama policies on a number of issues, but equally as unhappy on others. It's also galling to see the President so ready to compromise with the right on so many issues, but seemingly inattentive to the concerns of his progressive constituents (who he seems to view as "in the bag anyways"). For example, where is the the emphasis on the Progressive Caucus and their People's Budget? Where is the driving need to cut defense spending?

 

obama has increased transperancy. you shouldn't hang your hat on the fact that people from national security are being prosecuted because, well national security is national security.

defense spending cut for first time in more than decade.

 

Greenwald admits freely that the sources are anonymous and the details unknown. Nevertheless he makes the point, as argued in regards to the debt via Krugman based on similar situations in other arenas and past maneuvering.

Greenwald's not speculating here, he is making a conscious connection between what the president is doing and what it represents. To think that this is something different seems naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

No, the alarm should be raised now before this gets "compromised" any further.

I like how you position this entire post as a rebuttal to "speculation" and then end with a massive hyperbole.

as for pgabriel...

 

You have received several responses of substance and you have ignored them all. You are a dishonest debater and are apparently incapable of having a serious conversation beyond saying Obama sucks. Go back and respond to the people that responded to you and give them (and me) the same benefit of a serious response that we gave you. Or you have zero cred and should go crawl back under your "la la la, I can't hear you" rock.

Not a single Republican on this board has been willing to engage on substance. Just like Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the entire 2012 field. All you have is "Obama sucks." If you can't say why, with some frigging substance... If in fact you can't say anything (because that is what you're doing), get lost.

 

interesting fact, more people have been persecuted under the Espionage Act with the Obama Administration than all other administrations combined (including Nixon, Reagen, etc.). I wouldn't dismiss that so easily as "national security being national security."

Well, considering this decade has seen a rise of global military expenditure on par with Cold War peaks, I have to say it's not enough.

I want to see Obama press for more. He has the bully pulpit. Use it.

 

can you are greenwald at least make a list of all the promises that obama is reneging on?

 

i'd take the one who groped my man t*tties over the one that raped me in the ass any day of the week.

 

The fact of the matter and the point Greenwald makes is that the ideological overlords running the show remain the same. The motivation, the goals, the direction has not changed. Blaming "weak negotiations", "political nuance", or "compromise" is no longer believable in regards to these sorts of fundamental policy battles.

Is Obama better or worse in this regard? No. He's the same. But he sold himself as something else. And that stings.

 

its cool to argue in idiology and not specifics. thanks for giving us more high horse speeches

 

Your Obama-delusion is truly epic.

You're wrong.

Wrong

Wrong

I could go on, but you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about and you obviously don't care to listen.

 

"idiology"

Never has a term been more aptly misspelled.

 

He makes a point but it is speculative given that he admits the details are unknown. He is making an assumption on incomplete information.

Except we don't know to what extent things are getting compromised.

Given the alarmist tone of the article such as this part which you bolded for emphasis:
[rquoter]But it's also about ideology, conviction, and self-interest: Obama both believes in the corporatist agenda he embraces and assesses it to be in his political interest to be associated with it. If it means "painful" entitlement cuts for ordinary Americans at a time of massive unemployment, economic anxiety and exploding wealth inequality, so be it.[/rquoter]

I don't see how my response is hyperbolic at all. The article basically says that Obama is embraces corporate interest and is out to gut those programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) that were founded in the New Deal and Great Society.

 

oh we're back on your thread sort of. again, i will stand by my premise that national security issues do not fall under this issue. the whitehouse has been a lot more transparent on who obama meets to set policy.

funny the left b****es about obama meeting with healtcare execs to help in the healthcare debate, after claiming he's reneging on healthcare promises after claiming he's reneging on transparency promises, when without transparency they would have no idea who he's meeting with in that healthcare debate on the healthcare bill he got passed but somehow reneged on.

 

Yes it is kind of sad that the only substantive debates in this thread and some of the other political ones are between self-declared liberals and moderates.

 

Two slight problems with this:

1. Obama has talked since before he was elected about needing to reshape and contain entitlements. He's never shied away from that idea and has always been a deficit hawk in the long-term. If there had no been a financial crisis and need for lots of short-term stimulus, this would likely have been the defining piece of his Presidency along with health care.

2. The "corporatists" love things like SS and Medicare; they don't really have big problems with government spending. They aren't a driving force behind cutting those things. SS gives corporations more people who have money to buy stuff. Medicare cuts mean doctors, pharma, etc make less money.

 

Yes, but with a baseline of past policy battles to draw from! That's the entire premise of the article's title, "don't be shocked".

True. But the direction is alarming. Coupled with other Obama trends, I would think it perfectly reasonable to be wary.

Wait a minute - so you both simultaneously accuse Greenwald of speculating, and then attack again based on the outcome of that speculation? That's double jeopardy. No where is the term "gut" used and the idea that cuts to social security and medicare would be not painful is absurd.