dagblog - Comments for "Obama Loses Game of Chicken with GOP"

Ha Ha Ha. Of course if the O

NCD — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:41:08 +0000

In reply to I certainly didn't see it in

Ha Ha Ha. Of course if the O Team got out (1) Congressional district maps (2) list of GOP corporate defense PAC/donors and made cuts accordingly Republicans would be howling like scalded cats, and dropping Benghazi to start new investigations. O could say screw you, and double down, but he isn't that kinda 'realpolitik' guy.

Uh Oh. Talk about Obama capitulation, TPM reports O is getting plaudits from the Senator from South Carolina on what Obama is saying about 'a Grand Bargain', or the fleecing of the middle class I presume.

Hope you are right. Yet as

NCD — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:17:35 +0000

In reply to "tell me I'm wrong on this

Hope you are right. Yet as Robert Reich notes above, it's the unequal distribution of wealth and the low federal tax revenues that need to be addressed. He should have at least stuck to the 250K threshold for taxes, and rolled in a deal on the sequester in December. Obama blew it on the half a loaf deal over the Bush tax cut expiration. Now the sequester looks like it may go on and on.

Federal workers not being able to keep up plays into Republican hands as they will say (1) it's Obama's fault for poor leadership, (2) the government should be privatized (run by a cutout from a major corporation that pays low wages, few benefits and sends a % of the fat profits back to the Republican Party at election time). The GOP loves a government that fails in doing it's job, it's near the top of their mission statement.

We can also not pay for retirement of the boomers by cutting discretionary spending. That $2 trillion in the SS Trust Fund, which W said was 'just IOU's in a drawer', must be paid off with general revenue, or not at all as the GOP would prefer.

The canceling of the White House tours gives me the impression that the Obama team has the spine of a noodle. This is not showing you are unflinching in doing the job of governing and fighting back, it shows you are capitulating. This is a Democratic President who starts his 2nd term by being screwed by a slim plurality in 1/2 of 1/3 of the government.

The O Team: 'closing the White House for the first time since WW2 will show them'! BS. The Tealiban are laughing.

At least O is ending the wars, will never appoint another Scalia to the bench, and will not couponize Medicare, Medicaid, education etc etc. But his team is pinned down financially by the GOP, and it's their own fault. 2-4 more years of the football being pulled by the GOP as O kicks seems to be where we are headed.

I certainly didn't see it in

Michael Maiello — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:06:21 +0000

In reply to Obama Loses Game of Chicken with GOP

I certainly didn't see it in 2011, but... it does seem like the notion that the Pentagon budget is somehow sacred to Republicans is just... false. Now, if they were in charge of the Pentagon and, say, bombing the heck out of Iran, it might be a different issue. But with Obama in charge and not bombing Iran and fighting his wars by remote control, the Republican response seems to be, "meh."

"tell me I'm wrong on this

Flavius — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:53:22 +0000

In reply to Obama Loses Game of Chicken with GOP

"tell me I'm wrong on this analysis"

You're wrong.

Obama has cut the DOD without touching the entitlements. If he'd proposed that at any time to Boehner it would have been scornfully rejected.

The cuts in discretionary items will be painful but in many cases they provide their own pressure for correction. My government employee daughter regularly works unpaid overtime.And pays for herself many times over since her job is collecting fines. Big ones. I asked her if she'll compensate for her enforced holidays under the sequestor. " Oh , no" she said "they've got to be shown , there is a consequence to their actions"

How can he stop us from going

Resistance — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 03:57:06 +0000

In reply to I don't think even the Tea

How can he stop us from going to OUR house?

Why not cut all the perks for this self serving Congress.

I thought "WE", were their employers?

Work them less than 30 hours a week so we don't have to pay their benefits cut their pay,

If it's time to tighten our belts and get rid of the fat; start in DC. Set the example Congress.

Tell all previous congressional retirees; the moneys gone; they'll have to take a second job.

Immediately bring to the floor, there will be no automatic pay increases.

Just as they do for Clean elections; Put another check box on the 2013 tax form, Do you wish to raise your Congress persons pay?

Congressional perks: Lawmakers' most surprising benefits | The ...

How Are the Benefits? For Members of Congress, Not Too Shabby ...

I don't think even the Tea

NCD — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:03:06 +0000

In reply to pull out the Congressional

I don't think even the Tea Party voters would be against spending the money IN AMERICA instead of over there. I'm having trouble thinking of any Democrat with the conviction necessary to do it, however. $7 billion is a lot of money and the Pentagon wants it, needs it and has to have it. Of course, it's OK if Republicans were to do it, they do whatever they want. They can even start trillion dollar wars for political reasons and get away with it.

NO wait, Obama is striking back. HE IS CANCELING ALL WHITE HOUSE TOURS! These are arranged through your Congress person. This will hit the Tea Party very hard I am sure, a tough blow to all of them who had signed up to enter the evil den of the NObamaZero, right?

What a ridiculous move by Obama, as it it primarily his supporters/admirers who by and large would want to tour the WH. Additionally, all other government workers and functions must continue at some level under sequestration, and stopping tours completely sets a very sour example.

pull out the Congressional

Resistance — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:03:56 +0000

In reply to It may be $7 billion. The

pull out the Congressional district maps for the Tea Party boys and start doing some good old style hard ass politics with federal budget cutting?

Wouldn't that be great; of course they would cry" it's all about politics"

and Obama could reply "No Shite Sherlock" Two can play this game.

Maybe the Commander and Chief could allocate the 7 billion dollars defense money, to infrastructure repairs, based upon the reasoning Eisenhower (?) used, to rationalize the Interstate Transportation system.

It may be $7 billion. The

NCD — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:33:43 +0000

In reply to Surprise!!! The intransigence

It may be $7 billion. The plutocracy is loving Obama's second term as stated above, austerity for the peasant class, free money from Uncle Ben, new highs on Wall Street, what could go wrong?

When does the White House pull out the Congressional district maps for the Tea Party boys and start doing some good old style hard ass politics with federal budget cutting? Oh, I forgot Obama is above that. He's dealing with the GOP Mafia as if they have the integrity of the guys on Mount Rushmore. Wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans demand a spot for Boehner there before O's term is over.

Surprise!!! The intransigence

Resistance — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:14:00 +0000

In reply to They have O by the jewels--IF

Surprise!!! The intransigence serves the plutocracy. Each side can blame one another and Surprise!!! that too serves the masters of both parties.

Next thing you know, the peasants will be killing one another for the crumbs and Surprise!!!!! that serves the plutocracy too.

Did I hear correctly, that the Republicans are going to allow another 6 Billion dollars, to escape the budget cuts to the Defense department?

Let me guess, its for domestic defense?

They have O by the jewels--IF

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:43:48 +0000

In reply to Good points. Only in America

They have O by the jewels--IF the dominant media narrative is that their MO is an acceptable way to conduct the nation's business, and IF they avoid taking the lion's share of the blame for the human consequences of sequester cuts that go into effect (most of that won't begin to be evident for a few months).

I don't think either is a given. The side that holds the White House has the advantage in unfiltered or less filtered direct media access to the public. Bill Clinton was able to use the bully pulpit to inflict grievous damage on the GOP Congress in the mid-1990s when the latter shut down the government, overcoming the media's default "they said/they said" tendency to apportion blame as between the two partisan sides roughly equally. Messaging has to be simple and accessible to win this fight, as Clinton knew. He was able to execute by speaking an accessible language of values and consequences for real people, staying away from glazed eyes budget process arcana.

Meanwhile, far from being relegated to passive bystander status and waiting to see exactly what this latest train wreck in the making ends up looking like, members of the public who are fed up with this crap can organize, mobilize, and demand that the GOP grow up and stop damaging the economy and wrecking the lives of upstanding Americans. Your analysis as to why Obama shares a major part of the responsibility for the current predicament makes sense to me. What makes the GOP and not Obama the appropriate target for the expression of public grievances right now is that, whereas Obama does not want the sequester cuts to go into effect, the GOP clearly does. And they will block any actions that would avert the cuts unless they feel major heat from the public, and perhaps even if they do.

If you note that Obama himself agreed to the December 2011 deal that is the current reality, true. And the GOP will not tire of pointing this out, no matter what his appeal to the public is. But I think it's also true that to many members of the public staring into the abyss of looming layoffs and service cuts, December 2012, let alone December 2011, is ancient history. Obama and his team hopefully will be able to devise a "circumstances have changed" or other argument to defuse the GOP charge on this.