Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So the Party Line is now "Obama compromised because he wanted BIGGER cuts"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:54 PM
Original message
So the Party Line is now "Obama compromised because he wanted BIGGER cuts"
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 06:55 PM by Armstead
Listening to Debbie Schultz on Hardball, she is so proud because Obama originally wanted a Bigger debt reduction scheme that went against what many Democrats wanted.

That Grand Bargain was shot down by the Tea Party.

So now the official line is that Democrats are more conservative than Republicans?

WTF?

MY head hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gee, I miss Howard Dean
Just sayin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Me too! Makes me cry. :( n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think the Party line is Republicans were never serious about deficit reduction.
Which is true.

This is one way of saying it, but probably not the best way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. They aren't serious about it....But it shouldn't be our priority now either
First priority should be to kickstart the economy....Work out deficits once the nation is back on its feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. What did he give up' Armstead?
I'm confused. Can you please give me a link? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. He gave up a Grand Bargain that Reagan would have been proud of
Sorry...No links. BUt you'll be hearing this more from the mouthpieces in the days ahead, i'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. dumb asses...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. That's Not What She Said
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 07:00 PM by DarthDem
Geez. Spin much? There was a lot more nuance in her position. If your point is that Dems are horrible about messaging, though, they are.

None of this matters to Joe Voter anyway. Since a default would have had seriously negative consequences for the economy, the Democrats did the right thing, and they didn't really even give up much. At all. Obama now needs to do whatever he can to increase job creation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. THere was no nuance in that.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 07:12 PM by Armstead
It was very clear wHat she said there. It's the same Obama himself has said on several occasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. ^ Agree re: job creation ^
He needs to explain how the tax code encourages moving jobs to China, Mexico, etc. And back legislation to revise the code. That means Obama and Congress will need to go against the manufacturers associations and the Chamber of commerce. Maybe they can be convinced if jobs aren't brought back 'home' they will have no customers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. They see their markets overseas now because we are becoming an economic backwater
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 07:09 PM by Armstead
Sad butc true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Good Idea

That's a great start. Now, I don't think he can get that through the Teaper-controlled House, but he can try. I'm also trying to think of what he can do by executive order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. compounding the damage
the deal is bad, and this stuff makes it worse. The Democrats are selling people conservative ideas on the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama originally wanted $4 trillion in 12 years or less.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. What you are now witnessing is the most masterful rope-a-dope . . .
Seriously though, his position throughout this process was that he wanted cuts. He put them on the table. He meant it.

It seems to me that positioning Obama to the right of Republicans on debt and deficit was not some piece of masterful reverse psychology but a real campaign strategy. Re-election is so important that the administration is willing to put the historic values of the Democratic party on the table to win re-election. But then what?

I'd rather win or lose on core values. When polled on individual issues like tax and trade most Americans are overwhelmingly liberal. We need to stand by our case and make it to the public instead of triangulating ourselves into oblivion. I'm tired of the next election cycle being more important than what we actually believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. He is rope-a-doping liberals and progressives...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You're right, PA28.
And I'm disappointed, anxious and scared. Why should I be upbeat? I'm afraid of getting old with no real savings, a crummy, economy, Medicare co-pays I can't afford and god only knows what.

Happy Days are not here again for many of us. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. You should be concerned.
The social contract is being re-written behind closed doors.

Right now the only thing that makes me hopeful is the response of the people of Wisconsin. I'd really like to see the Wisconsin protests on a nationwide scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Fox news exists to tamp down the rebellion impulse.
But who knows what can happen when they push us down too hard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. So *'s unfunded spending was actually liberal?
You aren't the only one whose head hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
19. Because Obama wanted 4 trillion versus the 2.3/2.4 trillion they went with. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC