Why can't Boehner abandon tea party freshmen and do a last minute compromise plan with dems?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Neither party cares about addressing the real problems.

Oh please. I am so effing sick of this pretense that both parties are to blame.

You are conflating two separate issues:

1) Neither party cares about addressing the real problem: Given that we are in a recession and facing a jobs crisis, please point out which party is addressing those two issues with a jobs and/or stimulus program and I will retract my accusation.

2) Both parties are to blame: One party, or more accurately, one faction of one party, is clearly more to blame for the current stalemate. The Democrats did not bring about this crisis (the debt ceiling has never been an issue until the Republicans made it one) and the Democrats have been infinitely more willing to compromise.

So, yes, the Republicans hold the bulk of the responsibility for this crisis. However, the Democrats are also guilty for joining the austerity bandwagon when the exact opposite is needed.

[Anonymous]

Obama has been incredibly bad at actually getting his policies enacted. And the Democrats have been gutless and ineffectual as well. But two things:

First, the mainstream Democrats in Congress attempted to pass a large stimulus bill. Setting aside the question of whether a stimulus would have helped in the face of collapsing private state and local spending, the fact of the matter is, it was the Democrats who passed it. Almost every economist who was in favor of stimulus argued that the stimulus passed was too small. The reason it was too small we that it needed to attract a handful of centrist Republicans and right-leaning Democrats. So it was much, much smaller than economists recommended. So that's Democrats trying to "solve the problem". Obama said himself that it was politically infeasible to pass a larger stimulus.

The second incident of Democrats adressing long-term fiscal stability was the passing of ACA, which provides a framework for making substantial cuts to Medicare spending--which is the only form of entitlement that actually is in any form of crisis (all the talk about the social security crisis is horsehit).

The Democrats were absolutely killed in the last election, mostly on the basis of GOP attack ads that they "cut Medicare", because of ACA.

So now, there's exactly no chance of getting spending bills passed, because they must originate in the House.

The major critique of Obama is that at no point has he served as an effective marketer of liberal policies. He's bought into Republican framing in the lead-up and ever since the mid-terms. (Obviously the simplest explanation for that is that he's pretty much a moderate Republican in the mold of Mitt Romney.)

[Anonymous]

dems are done. This is an utter defeat for them. wait till the cuts start to bit. people are going to pissed and the dems will get the blame. at any time the dems could have called the bluff. they never do. obama could say I will sign a clean bill that increase the debt limit till after the 2012 election or half tax increases half spending cut cuts bill. anything else I will veto. he would never think of doing that...he has to go. as long as the dems do not stand and fight, they can not govern the country. all it takes is one republican saying no and they run.

[Anonymous]

Given that we are in a recession and facing a jobs crisis, please point out which party is addressing those two issues with a jobs and/or stimulus program

The whole point of this crisis is to keep the Democrats from doing anything except focusing on the crisis. That's why they want to do it again in six months.

Since this has the largest impact on our economy right now, Democrats have no choice but to deal with it. Worse, because it involves spending and revenue it has to go through the House before the Senate can take action. That's why the House was talking about post office names instead of the scheduled budget vote.

You're talking about a hostage negotiation and saying that neither side really cares about the hostage. Obviously one side does, or the whole thing would have been finished long ago.

[Anonymous]

at any time the dems could have called the bluff. they never do.

Did you miss the part where they offered three times the cuts the Republicans asked for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:dems are done. This is an utter defeat for them. wait till the cuts start to bit. people are going to pissed and the dems will get the blame. at any time the dems could have called the bluff. they never do. obama could say I will sign a clean bill that increase the debt limit till after the 2012 election or half tax increases half spending cut cuts bill. anything else I will veto. he would never think of doing that...he has to go. as long as the dems do not stand and fight, they can not govern the country. all it takes is one republican saying no and they run.

Sure, but as centrist Democratic organization "Third Way" cheerfully reported, Democrats are actually WINNING the public over on "the deficit". That's right, Americans trust the Democrats on "the deficit"! Hooray!

Unfortunately, Americans (aside from the fringiest of the fringe of the Tea Party) don't give an actual *shit* about "the deficit". They care much more about "jobs." And the GOP is polling much better than the Dems on that.

Granted, this is what the liberal wing of the Democratic party has been saying for about two years now: that even the "deficit hawks" in the GOP don't give a fuck about "the deficit", the care about a) keeping marginal tax rates low for the top 2% of earners; and b) making sure undeserving brown people don't get "stuff" they don't deserve. That's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

at any time the dems could have called the bluff. they never do.

Did you miss the part where they offered three times the cuts the Republicans asked for?

Doesn't matter; it's only compromise if the Republicans say it is. Short of that, both sides are equally to blame.

People really know fuck-all about anything in this country, but they can't really be blamed given the corporate media they have to work with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Given that we are in a recession and facing a jobs crisis, please point out which party is addressing those two issues with a jobs and/or stimulus program

The whole point of this crisis is to keep the Democrats from doing anything except focusing on the crisis. That's why they want to do it again in six months.

Since this has the largest impact on our economy right now, Democrats have no choice but to deal with it. Worse, because it involves spending and revenue it has to go through the House before the Senate can take action. That's why the House was talking about post office names instead of the scheduled budget vote.

You're talking about a hostage negotiation and saying that neither side really cares about the hostage. Obviously one side does, or the whole thing would have been finished long ago.

Great analogy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You're talking about a hostage negotiation and saying that neither side really cares about the hostage. Obviously one side does, or the whole thing would have been finished long ago.

It is very difficult to understand others' intentions. You can only judge by actions. The Democrats might favor a jobs program and/or economic stimulus. But, they have done very little to show that they do. Basically, Obama began supporting austerity right after the 2010 elections. Since then the debate has not been between jobs and growth one side and austerity on the other. The debate has been over the amount of austerity. One side wants to take a meat cleaver to the budget and one wants to use a scalpel. Both are wrong, just to different extents.

[Anonymous]

Given that we are in a recession and facing a jobs crisis, please point out which party is addressing those two issues with a jobs and/or stimulus program


The whole point of this crisis is to keep the Democrats from doing anything except focusing on the crisis. That's why they want to do it again in six months.

Since this has the largest impact on our economy right now, Democrats have no choice but to deal with it. Worse, because it involves spending and revenue it has to go through the House before the Senate can take action. That's why the House was talking about post office names instead of the scheduled budget vote.

You're talking about a hostage negotiation and saying that neither side really cares about the hostage. Obviously one side does, or the whole thing would have been finished long ago.

The republicans care the most, if the not do pass anything, the business lobby who fund the GOP will go crazy... that's how tarp got passed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're talking about a hostage negotiation and saying that neither side really cares about the hostage. Obviously one side does, or the whole thing would have been finished long ago.

It is very difficult to understand others' intentions. You can only judge by actions. The Democrats might favor a jobs program and/or economic stimulus. But, they have done very little to show that they do. Basically, Obama began supporting austerity right after the 2010 elections. Since then the debate has not been between jobs and growth one side and austerity on the other. The debate has been over the amount of austerity. One side wants to take a meat cleaver to the budget and one wants to use a scalpel. Both are wrong, just to different extents.

So.... how exactly would Obama be originating another stimulus bill in the Boehner House again?

[Anonymous]

It is very difficult to understand others' intentions.

Yeah, that whole "Invest in the Future" theme Obama kept talking about during the State of the Union never really took off, did it?

I think what you're really trying to say is that intentions don't mean anything without results. And that's the objective for Republicans (not jobs OR deficit).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So.... how exactly would Obama be originating another stimulus bill in the Boehner House again?

He could start by proposing one.

If you are asking about the legislative technicalities, lots of bills start in the House. The Senate can simply amend one of those and send it back.

The man is President of the United States. I have very little patience for claims that he is powerless.

[Anonymous]

The Senate can't amend something until they're sent something, Jeff. The House isn't going to send another stimulus bill.

A failed economy is really the only shot Republicans have at the White House in 2012. The only one. Of course more spending is what's needed, but if Obama gets it, Republicans chances are doomed. One thing they're good at is messaging. "The president wants to spend the nation into default." "The President wants a blank check." "The president is anti-business." "We're in a crisis of the president's creation."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The Senate can't amend something until they're sent something, Jeff. The House isn't going to send another stimulus bill.

A failed economy is really the only shot Republicans have at the White House in 2012. The only one. Of course more spending is what's needed, but if Obama gets it, Republicans chances are doomed. One thing they're good at is messaging. "The president wants to spend the nation into default." "The President wants a blank check." "The president is anti-business." "We're in a crisis of the president's creation."

The Senate doesn't have to wait for a stimulus bill to amend. For example, just today Harry Reid said that if the House didn't send him something by midnight, he would move forward with his own debt ceiling bill. How would that be possible? How could he move without a bill from the House? The answer, of course, is that he will simply grab any old bill that is laying around and amend it (removing all of its original text if necessary).

You and I agree on the Republicans' strategy. It appears we disagree on how Obama should respond. You seem to think he should roll over -- Lord knows he has plenty of practice. I think he should have proposed something and taken it to the people. Remember after the last stimulus how Republicans who voted against it held ribbon cuttings to take credit for the projects? Obama should have been going out to all of those locations and holding his own press conference. Tell the locals that he would like to see their Congressman take credit for additional projects. At each stop he could announce how many jobs were created by the project and suggest how many more would be created by further stimulus. Put the Republicans on their heals and keep the focus on jobs. But, my feeling is that Obama didn't simply miss that opportunity. I don't think he ever wanted it. I think Obama really does want to turn to austerity now. I don't think Obama really cares about the unemployed. That's what is most discouraging.