I think it's a matter of degree. Some amount of compromise is needed. Obama did the right thing in giving in to the Bush tax cut extension because it ended DADT, extended benefits for the unemployed, etc. In the instance of the debt ceiling Obama was right to put entitlement programs on the table in exchange for fixing the revenues. That is a compromise that hurts but is worthwhile. However compromising away all revenue adjustment is too far. It's a matter of degree.
And I think you can be pretty naive at times for someone who comes across here has very intelligent. You seem to have a problem with taking a political stand and being willing to have a confrontation with the opposition when they are amazingly wrong and equally irresposible. Batman, who's been singing your praises ad nauseum recently, should give you the same hammering he's been giving Judo lately for saying "both sides do the same thing," because that's what you are doing here. Equating Democrats who think Obama has made some serious mistakes in caving to and compromising with the radicals in the grip of the Republican Party. They are not all "bizarre," nor are they inane radicals simply because they disagree with your take on the approach the President has chosen in dealing with the extension of the Bush largess for the wealthy, and what we have seen playing out with this debt crisis. You assume that most of those who supported him in 2008 will do so again in 2012 because they have no other option. I agree that they will have no other option, but unlike myself, who would vote for a dogcatcher over any Republican possibility for the nomination, many other supporters from the Democratic Party, as well as many independents, may simply stay home. That would be a disaster.
I don't AT ALL believe both sides do the same thing. I believe the modern GOP plays political games to win elections. I believe the current Dems try to govern. That is the primary reason I support the Dems. If they just try to play the same political games as the GOP, they become just as worthless, even if I agree more with them on issues than the GOP. I don't have a problem with taking a political stand. I have a problem taking a political stand when you don't have a winning hand. There was no better outcome possible on the health care bill than Obama got. A handful of Dems in the Senate were never on board with a public option, and they were never going to get on board. Unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party has never been one that can be coerced into voting for something (the new GOP is becoming that way too, as we saw with the Boehner mess this week). So Obama could take a principled stand and lose, or he could accomplish something. There are other times where he took a principled stand when he DID have a winning hand, and those were smart. DADT by Congress, for example. He felt that he had an opportunity to push that through and didn't take the easy way out of just stopping discharges. Doing so would have let any future President reinstate them (with the penalty that everyone who came out in the interim gets booted) and would have taken the pressure of Congress to do anything. Instead, he held firm and he got best possible outcome. He fights the battles that he can win to accomplish the best end result. I agree - but I think turnout in Presidential elections is a bit overstated. It has an effect on the margins, but the vast majority of potential voters do ultimately vote. There's just a higher overall level of engagement because it's such a national phenomenon. It's the midterms where you see the big swings in voter turnout because people just don't know much about the candidates (especially when there's no competitive Senator or Governor race in a given state). 2004 is a good example. The GOP wasn't particularly excited about Bush at that point and lots of people thought Kerry would have a big turnout advantage. But at the end of the day, the GOP still turned out simply to vote against Kerry. I think the Dems will do the same once they see some of the ridiculous things that Romney or Perry say.
"I think a lot of those people, like tea partiers, are more interested in winning political fights than actually accomplishing anything. The people on the left, like the ones on the right, seem to think that if Obama just yelled and screamed loud enough, he'd have gotten his way." And what is that statement, Major? You dismiss those Democrats you view "on the left" as, essentially, children having a tantrum. You equate them with the "tea partiers" and the radical right of the Republican Party in their "unrealistic" expectation that the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be allowed to expire. For the life of me, I cannot see how being angry that Obama caved on that issue, that he didn't take a stand, when it was an important plank in his run for the nomination of his party, and that seeing it as the first important mistake he made that leads us to where we are today with this crisis is a nonsensical opinion, an unrealistic one, and amounts to nothing more than the ravings of "those on the left" in my party. What really ticks me off is this... "I think a lot of those people, like tea partiers, are more interested in winning political fights than actually accomplishing anything." What complete and utter nonsense. You can't seriously believe this.
I thought it was pretty apparent that Major was referring to the fringe ideologues, not simply anyone tilting left of center.
No - I dismiss "a lot of those" Democrats on the left as having a tantrum. Not all. But yes, the ones that just constantly whine and b**** about Obama being a wussy failure not worthy of their support and demand that he never compromise no matter the circumstances or the reasons, are doing exactly that: having a tantrum. At the end of the day, he has accomplished more for liberal causes than any President in 40+ years, and he did so facing one of the most obstructionist opposition parties in the history of the country. At some point, a rational person will look at that track record and say "hey, maybe he actually knows what he's doing". But an irrational person will continue with their rant about standing up and fighting without any regard to reality or effectiveness - which is arguably THE defining characteristic of tea partiers. But the primary difference is who I'm referencing. I do believe *supporters* of each side have extremists - that has always and will always be the case, especially when you have about 50 million people on each side. I think the Dems have their share of extremists, and the GOP has their share. The difference is in the actual elected officials - the Dems have far fewer irrational people there than does the GOP. That's where I don't believe "both sides are the same". That compromise didn't remotely lead to this mess. The GOP today is doing exactly what it was doing a year ago. The only difference is that it has far more members and control of the House. That compromise had zero impact on GOP strategy.
Here's are examples of the leftist crazies I'm referring to: PCCC: Debt Ceiling Deal 'A Bizarre Parallel Universe' Unsurprisingly, the Progressive Change Change Campaign Committee has joined with other left-leaning groups like MoveOn in condemning the debt ceiling deal currently in the final stages of negotiations on Capitol Hill. "Seeing a Democratic president take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe," PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a statement. "One with horrific consequences for middle-class families." "This deal is the exact opposite of what the majority of Americans support," Taylor added, "and all Democrats in Congress should oppose it." If we accept that the GOP is insane and willing to allow default to win the next election, there is NO WAY to get revenues through right now - none. So then your choices are default just to make your principled stand, or compromise. These people, 2 days before default, are trying to force the former. That's pure insanity and is very much like the Tea Party. It completely ignores any real world consequences and just demands standing on principle for the hell of it, despite having no winning hand.
This is kind of carried over from our discussion in the other thread, but if you don't take a stand here, at what point will a stand be made. The GOP will see that all they have to do is take it to the brink and never give in and that Democrats will always cave in. The GOP tactic will be to never compromise because they will never have to. Revenues will never change, and the shift will keep moving more and more right towards crazy trickle down economic ideas. There has to be a point where both sides compromise.
I addressed this over there, but the stand will be made in the election. Taxes will automatically go up in 2013 unless something is done - that's the "trigger" they already have built in. The Dems can make the election all about that issue if they want to take their stand. And it's actually an issue where Dems are strongly positioned. If they win the election, they will have won on that issue and they will have immense political support to kill the Bush tax cuts. If they lose the election, the GOP will own the House and the Presidency, and the Dems can simply obstruct in the Senate, ensuring they all expire. It will be blamed on the GOP because they will control the Presidency.
The only crazy people are the people on this board who think we should double down on the failing policies that are bringing the economy to its knees. And no (because this is all most people obsess about), raising taxes on rich people is not going to magically fix the economy just like lowering them hasn't.
The only thing the govt. can do that will help fix the economy is to stimulate consumers. Raising taxes won't fix it but it will help the deficit. It will help allow some of the programs that stimulate consumers continue to do so more efficiently.
I don't fault Obama for compromising generally. I understand he has to do that and I appreciate that he wants to do that. It's one of the reasons I voted for him and so enthusiastically supported him. He is, at his core, a uniter. I fault him for the ways in which he negotiates and for his failure to explain to the American people that he is negotiating on their behalf, not his party's. A good negotiation would begin with one side at 10 and the other side at -10. A reasonable solution would be to wind up at 0. But Obama opens talks at zero and the best he can do is to get 25% of what he, and the American people, wants. It is not only liberal Democrats that are disappointed in him for this and for his commensurate failure to keep some pretty important campaign promises; it is a lot of independents and a handful of reasonable Republicans that are too.
This thread isn't a discussion of "fixing the economy," it's a discussion about resolving the debt problem. Lowering taxes on the rich contributed meaningfully to this problem. Letting those tax cuts expire, as Bush himself intended when he passed them, would contribute meaningfully to its solution.
Really? Because despite all the handwringing from the left, this is exactly the kind of deal Obama likely wanted. 1. Obama agrees with the general idea that we are on a dangerous fiscal path and that government spending needs to be cut before things get out of control. He also believes revenues need to go up and that entitlements do need to be revamped. 2. All the specific cuts that are in there are things that were negotiated weeks ago in a bipartisan way, initiated by Joe Biden. 2. The things that the GOP got are garbage symbolic things: a BBA vote that will fail, and a couple of symbolic votes over the next year about the debt ceiling that have no impact on anything. 3. The things that the Dems got are the big, meaningful thingst: a debt ceiling increase through 2013 - one of the the longest and largest in history. They avoided all cuts to programs for the poor. And they got a trigger that hurts the GOP far more than the Dems, including $750B in defense spending cuts, and $750B in Medicare cuts that only affect providers - the exact approach Obama has advocated to reform Medicare. As a result, the Dems *finally* have positioned themselves in a position of power. They are the ones that now have the leverage - because they should have no problem with the trigger being enacted. Whether they use that leverage to get the tax hikes they want or the defense cuts you want or screw it up somehow, we'll see. But unlike the debt ceiling or the December 2010 negotiations, the Dems actually are in the position of power in this upcoming debate. This is where they have their opportunity to take a stand and get a deal on their terms. It's the crazy left "damn Obama for negotiating!" people that are upset. But if you look at the actual details, this is a deal that favors the Dem interests - by a wide margin.
Interesting, as this appears to be the exact opposite of what most analysts are saying. Not that I trust analysts or doubt the veracity of your claims one way or the other...but I'm curious how to rectify the two...
I would need to see the various analysts' specifics to really respond to them. But the people like Krugman aren't analyzing - they are just regurgitating the party line, which is basically to panic everytime it seems like Obama negotiates anything. These are the people I was referring to in one of these threads when I mentioned the leftist version of the Tea Party. There may be things in the deal I'm not aware of - but from what I'm seeing, the GOP won the messaging war, but the Dems won basically all the details.
I'm just surprised that no one has really pointed this out in such a fashion, from either side... I think the most balanced stuff I have read as of late is from Bernstein and he certainly is not as optimistic as you are per say. I think for me the lack of any revenue increases and the de-emphasis on DoD is what really makes me annoyed and causes me to submit that the GOP game plan did work fairly effectively.
On the revenue increases, I agree - but that's where the Dems now have all the leverage going into the big $1.5T in cuts. Dems can essentially say "raise revenues or $750B in defense cuts go into effect." In theory, the Dems should be pressured by the $750B in Medicare cuts that would also occur, but it all is to providers - that's been the approach Obama has advocated since day #1 on dealing with Medicare. So Dems literally have nothing to lose with the trigger - whether they use that leverage is still an open question, but it's the first time they've really had it. On the defense cuts, you might be surprised: http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people Of the first $900B, $350B is defense/security spending cuts. Of the 2nd $1.5 trillion, there is potentially $750B in there. So we're potentially talking about $1 trillion out of the $2.5 trillion in defense cuts. If there is less in defense cuts, there's probably a good chance that's because the Dems got revenue hikes. It's the biggest defense cut we've had in a long time - and maybe ever.
