jollyroger's picture

    Prez: "Cat food! It's what's for dinner. (And we ain't talkin' Fancy Feast, nor even IAMS..it's Meow Mix for you, Granny.)

    Notwithstanding public pronouncements to the contrary by Joe "too far over his skiis" Biden, and Harry "Mitt Romney pays no taxes" Reid, we learn today that Barry "shiv-in-your-back" Obama is feeling the pain of House Repugnants with such poignancy that he finds it neccessary to bargain away a big chunk of Granny's outyear meal budgets; throwing Boehner a bone as it were, by snatching it from Granny's teeth.

    The mechanism for this particular manifestation of Reagan Republicanism in Democratic Mufti is the subtle deception called "chained CPI", a bookkeeping slight-of-hand by way of which legally mandated cost of living increases in benefits are shaved to reflect the the tendency of lower income seniors to adapt to privation through the substitution of a cheaper diet for a previous shopping list rendered out of reach by rises in price. (Of chicken, for instance, to be exchanged by the canny shopper for "Chicken Flavored Kibble, New&Improved! Now with aroma crystals!").

    The "Senate firewall" with Reid and Sanders in the pass at Thermopylae, may be but a bit of stagecraft to distract.

    The tell: We are working with a House Budget Resolution that includes a Reconciliation instruction, added by Lyin' Ryan back in the day, presumably at the behest of John Boehner passing along the desideratum of his grand bargain partner-in-crime, who looked to give cover to ostensible friends of the people in the Senate. (Obama himself, of course, has had a long history of promises to filibuster this or that obnoxious bill for which he later voted, but some others have their pride...)

    Comments

    Hey, T-Mac! How ya like him now?

    I love him jolly. What I can't believe is you haven't moved out here yet, where pot is legal, gay marriage is legal and the Pres says he has bigger fish to fry than to prosecute the citizens of Washington and Colorado over weed.

    Oh and also, let me ask you this, are you sure that the Presidents proposal will be accepted by craaazay Republicans? I get the idea the President proposes this, Republicans refuse saying it isn't enough and the Pres goes to the people and says I proposed entitlement cuts, that still isn't good enough for them and takes that issue around the country and uses it against Republicans and Republicans then have to fold to take away subsides on Oil companies, Agri businesses etc?

    Right, you have no clue. But I will be happy to have you as my new neighbor.

    :D


    BarBarack DEMockery RULE$!


    I 'd love to believe in the eleventy dimensional chess plan, but then why the reconciliation resolution in Ryan's budget. cui bono? Now, pass me that doobie..

    Let me add that if the plan is to trap the pugs into recalcitrance, throwing them social security is the wrong bone. Rather offer 200 Billion off wasteful defense spending...that way there's no risk they'll agree.

    Really, so how is your analysis working now Jolly? Oh right, one more time you were wrong. It was the right bone to throw them, because they threw it out the window and wouldn't compromise, they came up with their own plan B, hahahaha, which made Boehner cry! Hahahaha We all just witnessed this. So Jolly, when are any of your grand pronouncements going to be proved right?

    Hahaha, never because you don't seem to understand that Republicans will try anything and everything to attempt to crush the President, and it always backfires on them. Always. How can you not see this?

    You'd think after observing this for 4 years you'd know better. But you don't, why is that?


    I fear we differ in our analysis. By continuing to negotiate with an interlocutor who lacks authority to deliver on his bargain, Obama is perpetually subject to the moving. goalposts problem. Already 1.6 trillion new tax revenue has become 1.2, a $250,000 threshold. Is now $400,000, chained cpi is the new normal, and debt limit blackmail is still on the Repugnant toolkit. This is now the bargaining FLOOR. If Obama had used this meltdown to crystallize and make operational public disgust, declare Boehner ineligible for serious consideration, and opened the throttle for the edge of salvation that is built into the military sequestration, I'd concur in your analysis. As it is, I see a guy who can't clamp down on the jugular, or really doesn't want to. Lets talk further when. we see how this turns out.

    Please address the reconciliation instruction. What the fuck is it there for?

    How about this scenario jolly

    The democrats will form a circle and shoot themselves; when they try to enact gun control, costing them the mid term elections...... again.


    NO Gran Buggerin', in NightMerica Before Christmas; Obomanable Rumpkin king!

    BarBarack CPI: Chains we can BEREAVE in! It's why Obombya and Boner are regularly tearing-up; it's gonna be a Hard $ELL-OUT!


    Jolly, I would love for you to remind me of a time you've been correct about this President. So far you've been wrong about, well everything. So tell me this, why should I take any of your pronouncements seriously?   

    You seem to search for reasons to be continually angry with the President. And when you find one you write me a funny, angry blog. However, let's get real it seems his methods work, because as I type this, Republicans are melting down before us, showing the country and the world they are unfit to govern. 

    Oh and it isn't eleventy dimensional chess that the President is playing, which is just another lame analysis, steeped in your own mythology that your solution (fist fight and yell at everyone) is the best solution for everything. But it seems you've failed to notice in these past 4 years the Republican Party is eating itself.  They are angry old white guys, who disown their own, (hi Chuck Hagel) when they don't get their way, not unlike yourself, who disowns the President every single time you think he isn't doing something exactly as you want him too.   

    But if you'd been correct about anything, anything at all I'd be more willing to entertain and take seriously the blogs your write for me, but I mostly take them as an gentle joke between yourself and myself. One where you write an outrageous blog against or about the President, where I get to mildly chuckle at your outrage and where we banter back and forth, both of us realizing the only person here who is right, is me.

    Happy Chanukah Jolly from your best Irish formerly Catholic Virtual Friend. devil


    See misplaced replies above. also, to reiterate, what is the reconciliation instruction for if not to implement the betrayal scenario? And Merry Christmas. I am Anti-Yahwist but Pro Jesus. (I light no menorahs but will eat latkes...)

    Name one single time you've been correct about this President and his actions Jolly, and if you can I might take your opinion seriously. But I can't take anything you've written seriously, because you take one little piece of information, and then you extrapolate out in a "what if" type scenario.

    Yes I think the President is great at sticking it to the Republicans, and and he does it over and over again. Not only are Republicans in complete and total disarray but they are eating each other alive, which is kind of awesome.

    But you should definitely keep getting yourself spun up over stuff that doesn't ever happen.


    Not only are Republicans in complete and total disarray but they are eating each other alive, which is kind of awesome.

    So is the rest of the Nation.


    I'm (perhaps less than  you) not invested in being " right" .  In fact, I pray daily that I am wrong in my diminished regard for Prez.  Notwithstanding your lengthy rejoinder, you have not deconstructed with any granularity the implications of the presence in a Repugnant led House budget resolution of a reconciliation instruction.

    More broadly, as to rightly or wrongly predicting the behaviour and outcomes thereof manifested by Obama, I will undertake later the tedious list of those criticisms previously made which I fear have proved accurate, as well as those of my encomia which sadly have proved incorrect..

    Meanwhile, feel free to address the question, wherefor an anti-filibuster defence from the Senate minority party?


    1. I advanced the opinion that Prez was deliberately pissing on the progressive wing of the party to snooker the Repugnants (more or less, I think, what you are currently saying.)  I was wrong.

     

    Until otherwise persuaded, based upon his steady hand through the campaign, when we were all about the vapors, I am going to accept as strategic all appointments, perquisites, honors, speaking engagements, or what have you, that cause us to grind our teeth (Eg, Rick Warren) and make Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes alert their dry cleaners to problem protein stains in the pants of their business suits.

    I believe he will get cover for his ultimate agenda through the simpletons on Fox News crowing over how he is fucking the left.


    2.  I predicted that Obama would mobilize the campaign organization from 2008 into a permanent pressure group to actualize his agenda. <I was wrong

     

    Today, he asks us only to pledge.

    And to prepare.


    3.  I thought Obama understood the depth of the economic crisis he inherited as was preparing to mobilize effectively to remediate it. <I was wrong.

     

    Anyway, in the course of hearing "the lamentations of their women", I have been amused to be treated to the preposterous complaint which would have it that Prez sins in failing to be the same sort of denial-addled moronic cheerleader as the guy who ran us into this ditch.


    5  I thought that Obama's kid glove treatment of the banks portended ill for his economic stewardship.I was right.

     

     

    It is, I suppose, possible to give Prez the benefit of the doubt anent his acquiescence in the wholesale looting of the fisc by the Goldman Gang (Butch Paulson and Tim “The Manhattan Kid” Geithner)—perhaps he had his reasons.

    That said, only a doofus would fail to ensure that a double-dip of public rescue would not end up on top of the apple pie at the Financiers’ Annual Dinner and Swap Meet (Every year at theBohemian Grove near my home…)

    Since Prez is not a doofus, may we not ask when he will bring the hammer down


    6. I thought that his conduct of the campaign for Obamacare was premised upon his declaration that affordable coverage was going to be a lodestone of his plan, and thus assumed that he was going to stand behind the public option. I was, alas, wrong. 

     

    The Lights-Out Left Hook: Create conditions such that only with the budget impact of the public option savings can the mandates of the Byrd Rule be met. Whereupon party survival, much less party discipline, brings to heel. the extra 2-3 Dem Senators needed to get to 50.

    I love it when a plan comes together…

     


    If you're seeing a pattern here, I've been right when expecting betrayal from Obama, wrong when thinking he was holding to stated principles...more to come.


    7. I thought his appointment of Sotomayor portended ill, she being insufficiently left.  I think his subsequent behavior vis-a-vis the judiciary bears me out.  He has not come close to using his appointment powers as transformative levers.  YMMV.


    8.  I thought his diffidence and delay in administrative appointments manifested puzzling lack of zeal for governing. (Why run for President if you don't want to be in charge) coupled with poor judgement if he really wanted to effectuate good governance (as opposed to appease and or advance the interests of the plutocracy over the people)

     

    Like re-appointing Kristine Svinicki to the Nuclear  Regulatory Commission, which, if you live in many urban centers, including NYC, is all that stands between you and Fukushima redux.


    9.  I thought he would be making a mistake to cave to the generals and surge in Afghanistan. I was right.

     

     

    I love me some Barack, but he’s no Alexander the Great


    10. I thought Obama would discipline Netanyahu and push effectively for Palestinian statehood and Israeli restraint.  I was soooo wrong.

     

    Prez knows that only under the whip will Bibi curb his zeal for showing Achmadinajad what a holocaust really looks like. Therefor, Bibi needs to internalize the truth that Prez is serious about forbidding a bomb run and will prevent disobedience


    Hey - explain why should a republican representative should vote contrary to wishes of his or her constituency?


    To spend more time with his family?  (it's a trick question, right?)


    So you got nothing.

    You thought, you predicted, you thought, but none of those are correct predictions, you haven't been right about.... anything.

    Unlike your predictions however, the President has gotten lots of work done and to top that off he has shown the Republicans to be rather rash and they have an inability to do what is right and an inability to get any work accomplished.

    You fly of the handle every time you hear or read something that you don't want to read, especially if it has to do with the President negotiating with Republicans.  You, not unlike Republicans believe there should be no negotiating, that every situation should be a my way or the highway scenario.   But every time the President comes out looking pretty good, because it always looks like he is willing to deal and Republicans, who have the same attitude you do, never accomplish anything.  And then what happens? Oh right Republicans look like loons who will do nothing good for the country, because for some reason, they don't believe in compromise or discussion or finding common ground, they believe in what you believe in, "my way or the highway".

    So when the Pres offers something like the chained CPI change to Social Security, he knew, unlike yourself, that the Republicans would never go for it, even though you should have known this by now, because this was an entirely predicable scenario. This is what they do all the time.  They are so predictable that they will never compromise anything, even when they are seemingly getting their way, and as I originally told you, now the President looks great, looks like he willing to do what is necessary to fix the country and Republicans, like Boehner look stupid and ineffectual and as though they are not willing to do what it takes to make the country better, in fact now they are willing one more time to crash the economy and if the President stops them from doing that he is going to look like a hero and they will look like idiotic bigots, unwilling to do what is necessary to keep the nations financials in good standing.

    So you've been wrong all along. All one has to do is reread your blogs to find the truth of my statement. But you are funny and good natured about the ribbing I like to give you, so you should remain wrong, that gives us lots to argue about.

    Well now I must get ready for work.

    Have a good day.


    From my count, he noted 3 rights and a few YMMV's.

    Yes, Mr. Eleventy-Dimenshunal Chess knew Repubs wouldn't go for chained CPI - though chained CPI is part of Bowles-Simpson and "Gang of Six" proposals. Terrance Heath explains better. But JR is just off the reservation if notes the President and Democratic Congress proposing something he doesn't want, because someone assumes it'll never pass with Republicans. Even the the Prez has been angling for chained CPI cuts to Social Security for years, such as here, and general cuts to benefits here, but he wants to show he got some kind of GOP concession as kind of his Nixon-to-China moment.

    I think we went through this with health care - all the awful trial balloons, so by the time something passed via reconciliation, a half shit sandwich tasted better than the full shit sandwich. But we have an earnest president noting we have to shave off Social Security to solve the non-existing problem that just getting out of Afghanistan would fix in terms of money. So let's pretend Mr. Spock-big ears knows what he's doing until we're unhappy with results, and then we'll just be content with "the best we could have done"and "don't look backwards, look forwards"


     he has shown the Republicans to be rather rash and they have an inability to do what is right and an inability to get any work accomplished.

    He has shown shit.  They kicked our asses in 2010 and he did nothing effective to prevent them holding the House (and his balls in a jar) in 2012.

     

    Money talks, bullshit walks.

     

    I got tired when I reached January 2010, and I thought the list was getting tedious and repetitive, but since you ask, I'll put in the time to help you understand that Obama is not so much a failure as a phony.


    Here's Obama's DoJ helping Scott Bloch stay out of jail despite a plea bargain involving only a  month in jail. But even that's too much for obstructing Congress and illegally removing people's job protection. Don't look back look forward la la la....

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/12/21/scott-bloch-and-roll-doj-takes-a-ho...


    Oh shit! You WOULD have to go and bring up the tangled ball of shit stained yarn that is Obama's record anent "justice".

     

    Perhaps when she returns Tmac (or any available surrogates) would care to compare and contrast Obama's record on presidential pardons and commutations with that of his predecessors.

     

    Two names for help in that discussion:  Leonard Peltier and Don Siegelman.

     

    Or just some random minority prisoner incarcerated for the last twenty years on a humbug mandatory minimum accessory to drug sale by her boyfriend beef....anyone.


    And, oh yeah, you have paragraphs to waste on premature declarations of victory, but still no idea what it means that the House passed a reconciliation instruction out in April.  Let me help you understand the thrust, by referring you to my (correct) prediction that reconciliation was the tool planned to bring health care home.

     

    Can you smell what Nancy P. is cookin'? It's Roast Rump of Reconciled Repugnant. Welcome to dinner, Senator; now choke on it.

     

    Prez waited all summer for the Budget Committee Bill--proof that budget reconciliation is the chosen vehicle. The try for 60 Senate votes? A charade.

     

    I adduce these posts not in an attempt to wrest from you any concessions pro or con vis-a-vis my analysis. Like I said, dear Jesus, make me wrong! I am, however, trying to focus your unruly attention on the reconciliation clause in Ryan's budget.

     

    What the fuck is going on???


    You are funny. But how can you mention the Ryan budget and exclaim you are right about anything, since when is the Ryan budget even in play? I mean, Paul Ryan is irrelevant and so is his budget.

    Umm soo, that makes you wrong again.

    OMG I am typing this at work!!! LOLOLOL.

    You are always wrong jolly my friend! And now I can type this to you on facebook too!cool


    You are confusing substance with procedure.  The substance of Ryan's budget is irrelevant.  The procedural impact of a reconciliation instruction, however, should be manifest to you in view of it's sole utility-to forestall a filibuster once a deal is made between the House and 51 Senators, 

    I'll walk through this slowly:  The only reason for Ryan to insert an antifilibuster defensive barrier is to protect a deal which has received the approval of the Repugnant dominated House.

    Thus, the TARGET of the resolution, must of necessity be a potential filibuster by whom?  Not the Senate  Republicans, perforce.  The only possible target would be 41 DEMOCRATIC Senators, fighting to protect progressive programs (as, eg, is implied by the Reid-Sanders letter already signed by twenty odd Dems.)

    Not withstanding your (somewhat smug, con respetto) dismissal, the reconciliation instruction is very much still relevant.

    Like I said,  you confuse substance and procedure.

    Here endeth the lesson.


    Come on jolly, what you wrote there actually makes no sense.

    The lesson only ended because you lost your train of thought.

    You wrote:

    You are confusing substance with procedure.

    Then you prattle on about an event that hasn't nor will happen. You are confusing the Bullshit you read at FDL with actual facts, you shouldn't make that mistake when you write a blog to me, because my keen eye will catch them.

    Please proceed gubner, proceed.


    My undertaking, evidently beyond my poor powers of explication, was to focus your attention upon the metacommunication of the existence of the instruction, not its ultimate invocation or the contrary.

    I offer the premise that the direction to insert this instruction came from Boehner, who could only be doing so in the sincere expectation that at some point he and Prez would reach a deal acceptable to the Pugs but odious to the Progs.

    Try and concentrate and eschew the side stepping irrelevancies.


    I like to watch you frantically attempt to refute me... it's fun to read.

    But you are still wrong about everything.


    Still fighting sibling rivalries by proxy?


    I can tell you've never seen a picture of my sister...Tmac is way cuter. (plus, she's a biking machine...all that endurance, ya feel me?)


    too much information


    OOh that's nice. See even if you are wrong I still like you cause deep down inside you are kind of a nice old man.


    Begging your pardon, I am nineteen...there is a problem with my paperwork which has been brought to the attention of the responsible authorities, who have assured me that a correction will arrive shortly.  I watch for it daily in the mail...


    Latest Comments