Obama's RW appeasement: cut progressive programs now so you can propose progressive programs later

Obama's appeasement: cut progressive programs now so you can propose progressive programs later
Everyone but the president knows that Republicans are NEVER going to bargain in good faith


Sacrificing democratic principles in order to take GOP issues "off the table" just never gets old for some people. I hoped that after the endless impotent triangulations of the Clinton Administration that our party would never let this empty maneuver be played on us again.

But my hope was wrong, as it's exactly what Obama is proposing now:



During campaign season we're told that we must elect a Democratic President in order to have our principles enacted in policy, and to have our issues at the forefront of debate. But after we send in our money, knock on doors and GOTV, we find that the priority of our democratic president is exactly the opposite. Suddenly we're bad progressives if we're not extending the Bush Tax Cuts, eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction, and slashing Social Security (which has ZERO impact on the deficit), because, he says, we must do this in order to (hopefully) see progressive programs proposed without Republicans whining about "tax and spend" liberals.

The president appears to be in a fugue state where he believes the deficit is magic wand which he'll wave to tongue-tie the GOP. What, in your experience of Republicans, gives you the impression they'd give up their rhetorical H-bomb: "tax and spend liberal?" Moreover, once you tell them you're handing them the massive victory of cutting Social Security, for fear of being called a "tax and spend liberal," they'd be stupid not to continue using since it's obviously useful weapon.

Recall the Clinton administration. Courtesy of the Reagan-Bush years, Clinton inherited the largest deficits in this country's history, and then erased them largely by destroying welfare, while wet-nursing the dot-com bubble. If Obama's deficit wager had any merit, supply side neoliberalism would be a distant memory as we'd be living in a utopia of shiny new bridges, (to the 21st Century) high speed rail, universal healthcare and education for all.

Once Clinton took the deficit "off the table" what giant progressive programs were proposed during his second term? Does anything leap to mind? Or, is Clinton's second term now remembered for the 11th-hour repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which is one of the main reasons the world economy crashed in 2007?

This progressive is too old and too tired to fall for this smoke and mirrors bullshit again. Not with so much at stake. Cutting Social Security won't make a penny's difference to the deficit. Other proposals, such as means-testing Social Security and Medicare is the surest way to see these programs eliminated as 'welfare' programs. Raising the age of Medicare is a sure way to kill off grandparents, for real this time. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction will surely cripple our housing markets for generations to come. And rejiggering the COLA calculation to assume that if people can't afford coffee, then they'll just drink water, is simply criminal. Social Security is our money -- we paid into it for our entire working life. It's not a welfare program that some fatcat gets to slash when he wants more money for wars in the Middle East.

Despite the hallucinatory quality of the notion, Obama sees his challenge as having to "sell" progressives on cutting progressive programs now, in order to sell progressive programs in the future. Here's more from Obama's presser:



To which progressives must reply: Given your track history of fighting for our issues, Mr. President, how are we to take you seriously when you promise progressive action in "a year, two years or five years."

Stealing from senior citizens is not how you invest in the future. Holding community colleges hostage is not a progressive value. And slashing Medicare and Medicaid by putting the uninsurable in a voucher insurance program is nothing but a GOP talking point.

This progressive is not buying what Obama's selling.

Neither is this one!

He is either the worst negotiator EVER,
or he is working for someone other than
the common man.

Either way, I cannot support what he is
doing.

And I don't think he's necessarily a strong politician, either.
I think he was created, bought and paid for by the DLC to vacuum
off votes from any real progressive that might have gotten in the
way during 2008.

Little did the DLC realize how low the country had been brought down
by the Bushies (with the help of those same vichy-Dems), and the
desperate people saw him as someone who would go to bat for the
little people.

I myself had hopes that he might slough them off after inauguration
day and really make good on that "hope" and "change" thing.

His cabinet picks dashed that immediately.

Still, must have chaffed Clinton's ass to actually lose to her
own tool....so there's THAT.

i love the term Vichy Dems!

what the President is advocating is to cut fraud and wasteful spending, like this, and increasing revenue to have more funds to pay for progressive programs. It also serves to neutralize the right's deficit argument.

is at our social programs and not to the Pentagon who can't account for billions of dollars.

The US Government Can't Account For Billions Spent In Afghanistan (2010)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-cant-account-for-billions-spent-in-afghanistan-2010-12#ixzz1SIY0fuQZ


Natch.

that's not what's happening, but since it's the GOP/media focus, that's what stands out.

President Obama is proposing billions defense cuts.



Kent Conrad proposed nearly $800 billion in defense cuts.

talking about trimming our "entitlements".

WTF is a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT doing calling Social Security benefits "ENTITLEMENTS"!?!?

He should have said SERVICES.

:crazy:

that caused quite the ruckus here at the abode.

From the link--

This is from a Time Magazine article about Larry Summers and how incredibly brilliant he is:

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

and I read a few blogger's analysis of it but this is the best I've seen.


Edited to add:

We live in a dizzying topsy turvy time and your post brilliantly illustrates that.

just had too much time on my hands today

:evilgrin:

on the altar of compromise and bipartisanship? Is there no line in the sand for Obama?

If Obama wins another term, which is likely, he will finish his presidency as a relatively young man (55). If he is concerned about how history views his presidency he may well be disappointed at how many Democrats view it because many will feel betrayed.

So, who has our backs?

He just smiles with his golfing buddy, as the rest of us contemplate how great NAFTA, welfare reform, and banking deregulation are working out. I get the idea that Obama is more concerned with future golfing buddies, than with how history will view his presidency.

Is a very very sad statement.

Ever expanding unfunded wars, nothing for jobs, nothing for homeowners who are losing their homes to outright theft, no support for unions under attack all over the country, pushing a free trade deal with those mass murderers in Colombia, free money and cabinet positions for the Wall Street perps, endless regurgitation of right wing economic mythology.

Maybe he needs to get his house in order. The American people are doing their part and more.

:nuke:

magical thinking will not pull us out of this depression.

one could start in the Oval Office.:eyes:

I'm frankly getting scared. :(

it's not just a random slip of the tongue. it's a manner in which they're constructing their understanding of the matter.

it's revealing of a high level contempt for us...the unwashed, non-professional masses (*deep cleansing breaths*). ugh.

... before telling Americans about the sacrifices they need to make.

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

....inferior to the progressive programs we cut (Social Security and Medicare).

sheeshus cripes.

i'm so tired of being talked to like a child. "eat your peas" and all that.

on job creation.

Thats what the Republicans always say.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

will create jobs?

The "Democrats" say "Spending during a Recession/Jobs Crisis creates jobs"....

Well, at least they used to say that.

He's not a "trickle down" fan.

but after the smoke clears,
the RICH get their Bailouts and Tax Cuts and MORE "Free Trade",
and the rest of us get to Sit Down, Shut Up, and Eat our Peas.
Oh, and send more money and get out the votes,
because "Ya don't want Palin, do ya?"
Hahahahahahahahaha!




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their EXCUSES!

:nuke: :nuke:

i wish we had another choice - but it does not appear that anyone is going to primary Obama. :(

hard to imagine what the stump speech are going to tout. going to take some creative rhetorical posturing to get obscure the anti-progressive policies of the last 4 years.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

Sad that only commentators on the internet understand how to analyze these things.

so we can call 'em like we see 'em.

The GOP, when in power, runs up the debit to weaken the country and prevent Democrats from spending anything.

That's just a fact.

The GOP and the media use the debt to get average Americans to surrender all future benefits. If you get at least some control over the debt, you can mitigate the effect of that.

Or, we could ignore it, and more and more Americans will accept deeper and deeper cuts to every social program.

Bottom line, Obama is correct. And the author of this piece is intentionally misleading.

Joe, I'm offended that you claim Nashville Brook is 'intentionally misleading.' Nashville is among our best most honest writers. I can't see anything 'misleading' in her OP. It appears triggered by the Obama administation's record of confusing press releases and recent statements during this debt ceiling 'crisis'. This crisis comes on the heels of 2 years of disappointments.

cross the line repeatedly, using not facts, but repeated hyperbole. Taking two statements from a very long press conference, and then attacking the President falsely, while throwing in what Clinton did wrong as a way to disparage Obama.

I watched the entire press conference as it happened.

Your friend claims .... "Suddenly we're bad progressives if we're not extending the Bush Tax Cuts, eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction, and slashing Social Security (which has ZERO impact on the deficit), because, he says, we must do this in order to (hopefully) see progressive programs proposed without Republicans whining about "tax and spend" liberals."

This is total bullshit. Let me explain why ...

1) At no time has Obama said you are a bad progressive is you don't like the extension of the tax cuts for EVERYONE (not just the rich if you want to be accurate). He extended them all. And he has never said you are a "bad progressive" if you were against the compromise he made. IN FACT, during the press conference, he said that he didn't want to extend them, and wanted them in whatever deal occurs in while raising the debt ceiling. Bottom line ... the CLAIM you friend made is false.

2) At no time did Obama advocate for "eliminating the mortgage tax deduction". It has not happened. And it was not part of the press conference. Your friend is saying Obama wants to do it. Its not true. The closest ANYONE has come on changes there is on mortgage interest on homes mortgages at or above around 1 million dollars, that is a LIMIT on how much interest could be deducted. Should be easy for your friend to prove me wrong, they just need to show an Obama quote where he proposes "eliminating" that deduction.

3) At no point has Obama said that we need to "slash" social security. In fact, in the press conference, he said that it is NOT a significant part of the debt discussion. He said, however, that any vote on social security is difficult because of the posturing that goes on around it. He said he'd be willing to consider changes that would help make it solvent for longer, but that he would not risk benefits for those currently collecting. When asked for something specific he said that he might consider, reduced benefits for some one like HIM ... and other very rich people. But would not consider changes that would result in cuts for those who need these programs.

There are lots of other problems in your friend's OP, but that one paragraph makes the point.

And again, Obama's statement was correct. The GOP tries to use the deficit to get people to give up all social programs. If we pretend to not see it, we hurt ourselves.

Joe, what you and a couple of others don't get is that many of us no longer perceive the President as fighting for us. That doesn't mean we're inimical towards ) Obama. We're disappointed, anxious, maybe a bit scared that President Obama isn't apparently fighting for the working class. Please don't start with the line 'you don't understand how government works'. Most of us do. Some here are far brighter than myself in that regard.

If Obama would fight for us instead of always compromising with the Republican right? The arguments on issues are framed in Republican terms. We are seemingly expected to cede hard-won New Deal ground to them.

it's too bad that he said it. but there it is.

Those who abide by the prinicples as established by FDR style of the Democratic Party. And those of the "New" Democratic Party, which has basically become what the Republican Party was during the Reagan era. (While the Republicans have become born again Christians with fascist tendencies expressed in a very angry way. The "New Democratic Party people express fasism also, but in a very smiley face way.

As a result, we still end up with unwinnable wars, a broken economy, tax cuts for the rich who can afford to pay, no tax cuts (or very minor ones) for the middle incomed and the poor, who cannot afford to pay, the jobs now in India, China Belize, Mexico and other third world countries, etc.

In the meantime, trust the politicians to handle it with all success they usually handle the economy.

Lots of really good posts on this thread, too!

:applause:
sw

and there were scenes in it where i couldn't help but think if i needed to protect our Hogwarts, i'd want all you DU'ers on my side. :hug:

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

Friday. I got the transcript of the one Monday from his Website because I was so upset watching that I thought I might not be seeing and hearing what I was from him. When I read the transcript it verified why I was so upset.

Then his Presser Yesterday was better and more sincerely delivered..in his charming way, but he didn't veer off from the points he made Monday, except that he might accept the McConnell compromise.

In your OP you bring out points that we need to think about. Because your analysis fits his pattern and Clinton's before.

Great Job. :you rock:

It makes me sick to see us all have to go through all this drama living with the results of his mistakes (misjudgemnts?) or the perhaps it was just the agenda of his handlers who wanted Clinton 3. Obama seemed to have so much potential...but, then we all wanted so badly to believe.

i couldn't see past the awfulness of the Reagan years to rightly assess his job while he was in office.

you're only young once.

are NEVER going to bargain in good faith. He is not in a class by himself. He KNOWS it, but it doesn't give him that bipartisan thrill.

must be some new kind of kick...life is short...full of stuff

etc etc.

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

Right now in making policy and passing bills? What could he do different other than talk about something some people would rather hear? Nothing. There are more of them than us and more of them than him represented in government. How is it really possible that any president could make some lasting policies happen?
Does anyone believe that there would be a single payer health plan, a department of peace, all wars ended, and the entire Bush administration jailed if Kucinich had been elected?

then he could endeavor to frame a debate in democratic terms rather than republican talking points.

then he could refuse to any cuts that further economically cripple the people least able to take financial hits.

let the clock run out and raise the ceiling thru procedural maneuver and then take the debate to the people. they'll stand behind him if he attempts to stand behind them.

there's all sorts of things he can do -- he's not without options. he's not without power. the fact that many people can't imagine any other world just goes to show how limited his approach has been.

is speaking in terms people understand. After 8 yrs of Republican rule with the media on their side, the mainstream language is the language he is using. We are very much in the minority. He has a responsibility to get reelected. The people I talk to in this red leaning state are just sick of the debate and want some kind of solution.

Another world where the president acts like a dictator. Been there, done that under Bush. I don't want Obama to take unilateral actions the way Bush did. It would be a really pointless presidency if some republican unilateralist quickly undid everything Obama did they instant they took office. Thus, no lasting policy change.
I think unilateral power grabs are a bad idea even when I agree with the results. Even liberals want their kings, I guess.

which is it?

"he could start by not lying about Social Security having anything to do with the deficit"

...you're accusing the President of lying about something he never said?

The President has repeatedly said that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.

A daily press conference reminding the public that SS and Medicare are absolutely not on the table, that there's nothing wrong with either program that cleaning up right-wing corruption in the rest of government won't fix. And reminding the public to communicate this with their representatives and senators.

He could also be reminding the nation daily that the Tea Party is insane, they have destroyed the Republican party, and are working on destroying the rest of the nation, and even the bankers are against them.

It all adds up to not lying. Obama seemingly just can't stop lying, kind of on general principles.

during the campaign, no one would have imagined that we were fighting to elect a Dem to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to advance the destruction of the social safety net/s...it's the exact opposite of what we fought for.

and yet, here's a dem posting his/her inability to imagine that this isn't the best of all possible worlds. pangloss could do no better himself.

already signalling his true intentions

now we've got all manner of murky rhetoric which people hopefully won't fall for

You can bet your sweet bippy Bernie Sanders won't be anywhere near it.

but never again. :grr:

be a nightmare rehabilitating the notion of hope for future dems who might actually intend to deliver on it.

right now it's a toxic meme...and that's tragic b/c we need hope...REAL hope.

Seems they used the same marketing campaign...just a different actor.

And never, ever mention how Smirko's tax breaks for the Have-Mores got us into the current round of red ink madness.

Thank you for your outstanding OP, Brooksita! You've spotted the mechanism and how it is designed, precisely, not to work.

thanky octafish'a :)

of a play, designed to distract, while the "real work" of keeping the Powers That Be firmly in place continues.

:kick: :kick:

and welcome to DU!

Denver is one of my all-time favorite towns. Such a beautiful part of the country + a great city.

Not buying.

and very Republican. Reagan would have been very proud. Thatcher, too.

"process" rather than actual political positions.

classic denial on my part.

here that haven't gotten out of denial, yet.

I also thought he was just talking about process at the time, but evidence to the contrary piled up pretty fast.