The President is a pragmatist and a realist.

He is not an idealist.

He wants to fix things and get credit for it.

We should have read him more accurately than we did. He did not try to conceal who he was.

When he hired Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, he was looking for people that could get things done. He was looking for knowledgeable people. He was not looking for progressives or idealists.

That is who he is. He is not as concerned about the future as he is about the present. Fix the healthcare system. If compromise is required, do whatever needs to be done to accomplish the goal. Get insurance for 30 million more people.

If the economy is struggling, do whatever the experts say needs to be done. If that requires giving the world to the bankers, then so be it. We will keep the economy from going into a depression.

If people are unemployed and need their benefits and that requires extending the horrendous Bush taxcuts, then so be it. Our goal is to make sure the unemployed are helped at this time.

Pragmatism and realism can be admirable assets. But, as we have seen, they can blind us to the big picture.

You don't show your hand in the beginning.

I do it all the time, it is to show you wont lose, and that you are not trying to take their money.

It is an education concept not a secrecy one.


Then again not everyone that shows their hand will show that they will win. :shrug:




And on a side note, I am still due beer and travel money and many experiences.

I was thinking the exact same thing

He means it.

random answers that rarely, if ever, are germane to the topic.

Or maybe a reply written in English, put through a translator into Spanish, then to German, then back to English again?


lol

:rofl:

what a disgusting pile on by you and your cronies.

After reading a thousand random responses that as I said before have little if anything germane to the topic.

and who are you decide if I'm "liberal"

LOL

If you want to be all altruistic in your poker playing, that's fine. But the president is playing with ravenous hyenas and he's giving them everything they want. I'd prefer a president who actually knows how to play the game (or isn't interested in throwing the game to the opposition).

I am showing that many do. I also have not made or lost any money, since I don't think in money concepts.

And I still don't have beer and travel money, so how could I lose or make money.


I agree you should not throw the game,

I don't throw the game by not playing their game. And I don't fold. because I don't play the game. And that is showing my always winning hand.


My comment really wasn't on the topic, but more thoughts on other ways to see things.

learn something new everyday.

What cannot be done is to be both a pragmatist and an pure idealist at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive of each other.

I have nothing against pragmatism. But pragmatism doesn't mean giving your opposition every damned thing they want when you should have the upper hand.

of my UI benfits for Christmas. I cannot believe how many who are opposed to this don't seem to give two whits about those of us who are going to lose that meagher income soon.

That money could be put to use giving you a job instead of just unemployment benefits since I am going to do an assume here-I assume you would rather be working then getting an inadequate for your needs check.

Now I have no idea what you are the best at but there are thousands of things that no one is thinking about that need to be done-road repair. Someone to process the paperwork for the pay for the road repair. Someone to review the contracts for the materials. Contracts for the laborers as well. Someone to do a quality inspection.

School repair-someone who can catalog the books that are too old to be left in libraries any more. Someone to organize the repainting. Someone to do the painting. Someone to do the repair work.

I mean seriously, just doing a simple job like painting a school takes more than just slapping paint on the walls.

I'm too lazy to do "real work", and UI benfits are enabling me to be as much of a lay-about as I want to be. OK...I guess the fact that there are at least five applicants for every job opening is of no consequence at all. The places with openings are going to hire experienced people over those who have none in that field. And $8/hour will not pay my mortgage alone, never mind heat and utilities. Get over it.

I think the poster was trying to say that this money could have been put to far better use and it could have been used both to extend UI benefits as well as to stimulate the economy. But that would have required the president to actually not fold from the very beginning. No one ever said anything about you being too lazy to work, so that's a nice distraction.

There are apparently LOTS of jobs to be had out there....People just don't want to do them!

Because I'm very interested in seeing where you got that. No one said there are lots of jobs out there.

What is the matter with me that I am not doing them?

You might not be aware of this, but things that need to be done is not the same thing as a job. I've got a ton of tub and tile work that needs to be done, yet that's not a job. The poster was saying that this money would have been better put toward getting things that need to be done... done. That's what the stimulus was for. Only it was far too little and too late to have a great influence on unemployment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6B70XD20101208

'Economists have estimated that extending the tax cuts could
boost U.S. GDP next year by between half and one full percentage
point.

However, some analysts say that as the cuts would be paid
for by further borrowing they raise concerns over fiscal
sustainability.'

more borrowing from china to pay for what we used to call the bush tax cuts and we all rightly derided
and are now the obama tax cuts and are magically good.

will come from extending the cuts for the bottom 90% or so. The rich wll just hoard their money; the only way to get it into circulation would be to take it from them in taxes and spend it for them.

those individuals making <20,000 a year and families making <40,000 a year will actually feel some pain in this tax cut scheme.

i think we have a guy who doesn't know how to bargain -- if we have to borrow money from other governments -- and make
the deficit larger -- we're kinda just staying in the same place or making the hole bigger.

oh well -- it's pretty much a done deal now -- and life goes on.

the "negative income tax" was traded for the cut in payroll taxes. This was a terrible thing to do on many grounds, perhaps the least of which is its negative impact on the bottom end of wage earners.

here it is --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/tax-cut-compromise-whose-taxes-rise_n_793572.html

'n fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale -- individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000.'

Reduced real income now, followed by whatever disasters befall SS in the coming months & years. I now have no doubt whatsoever SS is on the block. And it's there because Obama wants it there. He said as much, praising individual privatized accounts right in the beginning, and his appointments to the Catfood Commission made it dreadfully clear how things are about to go. Now this. A cut in payroll taxes will be almost impossible to repair, and will plunge SS toward the abyss all the faster.

but i think significan numbers of dem party big whigs are firm neo-liberals now.

regan's success and clinton's two term tenure solidified that crew.

sold out to the highest bidder, we have no representation.

We must become the change we desire.

all the specialty causes -- environmentalists, womens rights, lgbtiq rights, animal rights, unions -- will have to join
under one economic justice umbrella to move things in the right direction.

there is no significant left movement at this time.

the entire damn HCR is about the future and not about the present....

or maybe they will when Simpson Bowles implement their cat food commission death panels for Medicare.

DINOs and repub fillubuster would not allow it to take effect right away....keep your eye on the ball and blame the real villans here - the repubs/DINOs, not the man and those in congress fighting for us as much as they can under the circumstances.

More to come.

By 'more', what can I expect? The gutting of social security and medicare? I can't wait! Perhaps the elimination of the estate tax and permanent tax cuts for the top 2%? After all, he's gonna need to do more compromising in order to extend UI benefits. Yay!!!

I never understood why people would believe rumors instead of using facts. Oh well, being scared must be a thrill.

My expectations for the next couple of years? I was simply pointing out how every time the president has faced the GOP, they ended up getting just about everything they asked for. I'm just guessing the next two years will go much like the first considering now the GOP holds a majority in the house. I can't wait to see what kind of "compromise" the president has in store for us next. I'll make sure to be lubed up and ready for it.

Walmart needs good old American slave labor!

Welcome to Camp Obama, where serfdom blooms anew!

...for people that could get things done."

There were plenty of other knowledgeable people to hire.

He was looking for people who would get things done without messing with the corporate status quo. Apparently, that's the working definition of "pragmatism" and "realism" in this administration.

Read the OP again. He's not arguing for it either.

the writing was on the wall. Many just refused to read it.

I do remember one little tentative, very temporary rationalization of mine concerning the appointment of Rahm. I thought maybe he was following the old dictum, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

:hi:

Whatever "hope" I had for him went out the window after his appointments. :puke:

We gave him time and look what he did with it.

Ain't Bush's Third Term great?

A leader would walk into Boner's office and say, "We have a solid majority in the Senate and my veto pen. Are you on board with us motherfucker, or do I hang you out to dry?"

...not strategically. Leaders think strategically.

NGU.

hangs the unemployed out to dry? Yeah! Good leadership there.

The Republicans are hanging the unemployed out to dry.

obama never even bothered to call their bluff. the repubs ALWAYS threaten this, but eventually come around and vote to extend unemployment.

So the unemployed were held hostage by a band of Reptilians armed with toy guns.

pointed out that, at the end of the day, the GOPers always voted for the extensions, despite their bellyaching. He said flat out there was no need to tie th passage of the extension with the tax cuts. Obama was just dead wrong.

Not everyone was listening to what he said. Even now, people ignore what he says. The Saturday Morning addresses are watched on DU by only a few. Everyone already seems to know everything about President Obama, so they don't bother, I guess.

People have memory. And when you attempt to impugn their ability to recollect what they were told, you find out they have DVR's and pocket sized camcorders called cellphones. This "you weren't paying attention" crap isn't going to fly any more now than it did during the health insurance debacle.

He was my next-to-last choice for the nomination--and my next to last choice for President. McCain was my last choice. Nevertheless, somewhere between June & November '08 I got pretty fired up and hopeful about him, projecting upon him things that were not there. And I will now admit that those projections were probably largely responsible for my subsequent disappointment.

We knew, we just knew, that he was as serious as we about changing the Bush debacle.

not his problem people wanted to make him something he never was. i always knew this from the man. i dont see his governing any different than what i assumed it would be when he ran

i voted for him and had stars in my eyes for a quick minute..i cant even stand to hear the words helping middle class families from him..fix the goddamn foreclosure problem..make the banks modify mortgages..reinstate the bankruptcy clause for personal residences..hold someone accountable..anyone..i used to be middle class..like the rest of you..those were the good ol days..

that is all it takes. no need to worry about having votes or any of the other stuff that goes on within our system. since obama has not doen your list, he abandon it all.

that makes no sense to me. since there is reality. as much as i would like to see so many things, i know better.

He sees things as they are and rather than attempting to change the conditions, he chooses to submit completely. This dog won't hunt!

n/t

until progressives accept the fact that the PEOPLE change the conditions, not the President. Stop with the weak-ass excuses of why progressives aren't elected in places and get them elected there.

benefit of the doubt, could be all of our undoing. I take the words of Sanders and others to heart--that behind the RW's "compromise" is the intent to use this process to devastate social security. I believe that is quite likely and we would be blindly giving them the ammunition to do so.

I think most of us on this thread, including the OP, see it that way.

I am not sure of the word I would use, but "pragmatic" to me doesn't describe continuing the conditions which caused a disaster as a method of fixing that disaster.

He is a compromiser. He is the "Henry Clay" of Presidents. He is the Great Compromiser. He is capable of making a deal.

Not that he should give a shit--he apparently doesn't share in that soul.

I've lost all respect for him.
Not that I had much respect for him to begin with. I still would've preferred John Edwards over him.

He believes economies are fueled from the top-down, and that government's role is to service the elites in that economy.

When our ship is sinking, it's time to plug leaks.

There's always some lazy excuse for failing to do the right thing.

NGU.

.

to hell with tomorrow, he has his, set for life
the bottom will just have to take care of themselves

and start embracing right-wing policies.

OK, so why did he go into such a long explanation as to why the Bush tax cuts were needed at this time if he didn't believe in them now (as opposed to his campaign promises of cutting Bush tax cuts which were financially irresponsible).

He refers to the "Game" constantly. He seems to admire Ronald Reagan. I don't know if he's had any interest in other presidents and how they governed. There was a lot of buzz about him patterning himself after Lincoln. "Cabinet of Rivals" and so on. I think it was his campaign that was putting out that comparison. Building it up the meme so Democratic voters would believe we could expect a "great emancipator" who would free us from Republican oppression of Bush. But, Chris Hedges view that he is "Brand Obama" comes closer to my view of him these days. I don't see the depth there that all of us seemed to hope for. I think he likes to talk Sports and much of anything else becomes tedious and boring to him if it involves conflict and too much discussion of varying viewpoints.

In conclusion of my rambling... He prefers to delegate to "experts." He likes to talk sports. I don't mean that as a snark. It's how he practices his pragmatism. It will remain to be seen how that works out in the next two years. Somehow I don't think he will be seen as a Ronald Reagan. Reagan laughed everything off as an amiable doofus, and clever actor who delegated. Reagan became a "Brand" after his Presidency Obama established his "Brand" as a campaigner but isn't capable of maintaining it. Or so it seems. Reagan harmed this country.

is most certainly ideologically driven, even more so than average folk. They just have the ideology of the dominant class, (currently the financial sector elite) which they will, when pressed to give a name to their set of beliefs, cloak under insipid euphemisms like "the American Way". Because their ideology is already ensconced in power, it prefers low visibility. It doesn't need to transform the status quo since it is the status quo, and to become conspicuous in its claims and self-celebration would be to invite questioning. Therefore it prefers to set all important social and economic matters out-of-bounds to questions and masquerades its savage inequalities as the morally neutral outcomes of human nature -to chafe against which would be immoral-, or as the one and only way that things can get done, or the most efficient way of allocating resources, or as "our national tradition", and so on. But it is all about conserving and concentrating power for a narrow elite.

A pragmatist isn't interested in kudos... that you think this is so is very telling. Mis-defining is a dirty trick and I don't think that kind of action belongs here, or anywhere for that matter.

Again.

for example - tax rates - why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate? Estate tax - why pay taxes on money that was already taxed?

If everyone had 10 apples and I wanted to make a pie and I made Howie give me 5 apples but Stu only had to give me 1 - is that fair? We're talking percentage here - Howie has to give 50% and Stu 10%.

If you died and left 20 apples to your kids and they got to keep them all, but Stu died and left 30 apples to his kids, but they had to give back 10, is that fair? Shouldn't everyone give 30% ala Stu?

And it is wrong.

For starters, the rich get much larger benefits from society than do the poor.

he's neither a pragmatist nor a realist.

he's a corporatist centrist.

this is what you get when you buy into Madison Avenue promotions.

because it's cheaper than dope.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...is NOT "pragmatic".

If your goal is to help them break it again.

as are effectively all politicians on the national level.

It's all about what's good for big business, the wealthy. That is the pragmatism and realism which he practices. All else is dismissable.

By 'the economy' he and his ilk speak not of what affects you and me but rather Wall St and the top few percentiles.

This is a Capitalist society, do you think those at the top would have it any other way?

"I dream things that never were and say 'that wouldn't be pragmatic let's just stick with the status quo.'"

Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

toilet actually makes the big picture worse, not better.

Anyone who thinks we will ever have a Democratic president that would lose the chance to enact better policy just for purposes of political theater is dreaming. If a President knows he can't win a fight, but attempting the fight would result in much worse policy, the fight isn't going to happen.

If he does not change his ways very soon, he's likely going to be a one-termer.

The purist in him is the enemy of the fight.

where tax cuts for the rich lead to jobs and jobs programs are "too costly". Where war leads to peace, where inequality leads to justice, where insurance companies care about your health, and where big corporations can be trusted with your well being and that of the planet. He, and you, both live in a world that is far from pragmatic and completely removed from reality.