I’m sure that David Broder would be very happy with what happened yesterday. Don’t forget both the “hard left” and the Tea Party don’t like the deal, therefore it must be a good deal!
Personally, I think 80 billion in cuts — that’s what this was, from Obama’s original budget — sucks and that Democrats have to do a better job negotiating/fighting. No more Boehner-as-Tea-Party hostage negotiations. Ezra Klein (via):
The final compromise was $38.5 billion below 2010’s funding levels. That’s $78.5 billion below President Obama’s original budget proposal, which would’ve added $40 billion to 2010’s funding levels, and $6.5 billion below John Boehner’s original counteroffer, which would’ve subtracted $32 billion from 2010’s budget totals. In the end, the real negotiation was not between the Republicans and the Democrats, or even the Republicans and the White House. It was between John Boehner and the conservative wing of his party. And once that became clear, it turned out that Boehner’s original offer wasn’t even in the middle. It was slightly center-left.
But you would’ve never known it from President Obama’s encomium to the agreement. Obama bragged about “making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Harry Reid joined him, repeatedly calling the cuts “historic.” It fell to Boehner to give a clipped, businesslike statement on the deal. If you were just tuning in, you might’ve thought Boehner had been arguing for moderation, while both Obama and Reid sought to cut deeper. You would never have known that Democrats had spent months resisting these “historic” cuts, warning that they’d cost jobs and slow the recovery.
I’m not regularly in the Obama-is-a-weak-negotiator camp, getting ACA passed and ending DADT means he accomplished more legislatively in two years than Clinton did in eight. I also don’t know enough about Congressional wrangling to know how much falls on the president and how much on the Congress itself. I’m certainly sympathetic to the question “But at what point do members of Congress need to take responsibility for what happens in their chambers?” Also too, I think the White House is smart to protect the “Obama brand” as much as possible and I think that means avoiding the fray to a certain extent.
One way or the other, Broder-friendly bipartisan deals don’t cut it when you’ve got high unemployment and the Republicans’ policies may make it worse. Halfway to idiotic is idiotic, in my book.
WereBear
In the tissue thin attention span of the typical voter, the Democrats did the “sensible” thing and somehow made the Republicans unhappy by so doing.
Carol from CO
Getting ACA and DADT passed should have been a shoo-in given the super majority the dems had. DADT should have been passed at least a year and 1/2 before it finally squeezed through and the ACA…well it’s better than nothing for some people, I guess. It raised my costs because I’m a Medicare beneficiary. I can hardly wait to see what Obama “negotiates” for Social Security and, of course, he’s not through with Medicare yet.
Trent
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/9/obama-says-spending-deal-win-bipartisanship/?page=all
Looks like the democrats managed to get 50% of the cuts from mandatory spending which is more than they had hoped for.
Also there’s this:
I guess Boehner only pretended to ban all earmarks.
sukabi
Dead men cumming is the last thing I wanted to think about this morning, so thank you for that!
Egypt Steve
Zoobazaba, zoobazaba, zoobazaba zi, zoobizaba, zoobizaba zoobidaiundi!
Cleavage, Cleavage, thighs and hips!
Damn, that takes me back. Well chosen, sir. But I’m feeling old, because I get almost all of your old pop culture references. Not that Tom Waits was ever actually “pop culture.”
Kirk Spencer
I’ve not decided yet, either. Thing is there are two fights coming within the next couple, maybe three months, that are going to be nastier.
Fight one: the FY2012 budget. Fight two: the debt ceiling.
What this did was create a base for both those fights.
ItAintEazy
I would argue that ACA is a good example of bad negotiating. We gave up too much to get the bill that we have, imo.
trollhattan
Benen, echoing Yglesias, likens what occurred to a hostage-taking where the kidnapper had no qualms about killing said hostage:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028871.php
And yeah, everybody’s eyeballing the looming debt ceiling battle as an even worse one. Good times.
joe from Lowell
Wait a second. Obama, after his party loses the House of Representatives, comes in with a budget proposal that is $40 billion higher than the one that was passed by the previous Congress, which had a huge Democratic majority. He then gets talked down to a $38.5 billion cut from last year’s budget. Isn’t that exactly what everyone has been saying he should do? Start out with an unrealistic opening bid and let himself get talked down from there? If he’d come out with a budget that was $200 billion higher than last years, and got talked down to $38.5 billion in cuts, would you be writing a post on the theme “ZOMG, Obama got talked down $238.5 billion?”
Why are we pretending that the $32 billion cut was the Republicans’ opening offer? Because it totally wasn’t.
azlib
The utter disconnect between the economic impact of spending cuts and how this deal played out shows some additional political malpractice on the WH’s part. Do they not get that federal spending cuts translate into a drag on economic growth and more specifically job growth? And do they not realize that any hiccup in the recovery will be blamed on Obama?
I think a lot of Republicans cynically know this deal will be a drag on the economy. Obama and the Dems giving up on a full-throated defense of Keynesian demand side polices will end up being a lose-lose in the 2012 election cycle. The only hope Obama has is the pickup in private sector economic activity will take of the slack in public sector cutbacks.
Nellcote
Since there are so many goopers that will automatically vote against anything the Prez supports, even if they were for it 5 minutes ago, it’s unclear to me how his deeper participation would have helped.
Alan in SF
You give Clinton too little credit. He passed major elements of the DLC-Republican agenda, including NAFTA, telecom deregulation, finance industry deregulation, and welfare “reform.” He just didn’t pass any good legislation.
I could add that ACA was largely the plan favored by Clinton-era Republicans, and DADT was a Clinton-created policy, but it’s a beautiful sunny day here so I’ll let it go at that.
Joe Buck
Democrats need to make a firm stand when the debt ceiling increase comes up for a vote, and refuse to accept riders in exchange for Republicans voting for what must be done. Back in 1994, Republicans had always voted against every debt ceiling increase when they were the minority, and when they gained power, Democrats let them know that this wouldn’t be acceptable. They forced Republicans to own the debt ceiling increase by refusing any Democratic votes for the increase until a majority of Republicans signed on.
If they do the same this time, they can count on the Republicans’ big-money backers to twist arms until they pass it. A default would hurt investors severely.
the fenian
You like Shelley. I like Jane.
What was the girl with the snakeskin’s name?
kdaug
Don’t normally do this, but I’m in a mood this morning:
You told me people like to suffer
You told me that’s the way it is
You said that things were getting better
You said I should accept all this
__
You think it’s funny
But what I say is true
The reason that I live like this
Is all because of you
BTD
Not on taxes.
Quiddity
Re DougJ’s “getting ACA passed and ending DADT means he accomplished more legislatively in two years than Clinton did in eight”
The Clinton tax rates of 1993 was a greater accomplishment. It provided the financial support to keep a whole lot of safety net programs from being cut.
joeyess
$80 billion under his original budget.
I’m sure that the Bachmanns of the world will stop sniping about “tax and spend” liberals now, right?
BTD
@Quiddity:
Nobody cares about tax policy apparently.
Comrade DougJ
@BTD:
A tax increase during this recession would have been a great idea, right?
I give Clinton and Bush I a ton of credit for their tax increases. But given the atmosphere, I don’t think it compares with ACA.
ChrisNYC
Here’s what I don’t get. There’s a lot of people saying this is a “bad deal” but why? Is it just that it’s cuts to the President’s budget? That seems a faulty argument. Maybe that’s bad politically, but on the substance, why is that necessarily bad? I haven’t seen much on what the actual cuts were, much less on why they were bad.
Comrade DougJ
@Quiddity:
We can agree to disagree. I see where you’re coming from.
BTD
@Comrade DougJ:
Who said anything about comparing? I do not judge ACA based on the fact that “the atmosphere” was much more conducive to health care reform in 2009 as compared to 1993.
Obama got something and Clinton did not.
A tax increase on the rich vs. cutting spending for the poor during a recession is obviously much better policy.
And Clinton’s lift in 1993 on taxes was much much more difficult than Obama’s in December 2010.
Clinton’s tax plan passed by one vote in the House and Gore cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.
By contrast, Obama could have reinstated the Clinton tax policy by doing precisely NOTHING.
Then, when it came time to negotiate spending, he could have offered tax cuts in exchange for spending.
Indeed, he could have created an Obama tax cuts and investment plan for job creation plan.
Are you saying that would not have been better politically and policy-wise than what he has done?
The Deal was terrible. Or turruble, as Charles Barkly would say.
In any event, I think you are conceding the point, Clinton did more on taxes than Obama.
Which was the point of my original comment.
BTD
@ChrisNYC:
Because we are in a demand deficient economic situaation.
Reducing government consumption is terrible macroeconomic policy at this time.
And of course, the cutting services for the poor thing.
RinaX
@joe from Lowell:
That’s kind of what I was thinking…
joe from Lowell
Huh? In 1993, the Democrats had just scored a big victory at the polls and had the country on their side. In December 2010, the the Democrats had just suffered a huge defeat at the polls, and were on the wrong side of the public. It’s obviously much easier to get things done when you’re popular.
True, but then he wouldn’t have gotten DADT repeal and START, which certainly need to be taken into account when tallying up his legislative record, even if you ultimately come down on the side saying that two more years of Bush-era tax rates outweighs those accomplishments (which is a reasonable position to take).
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
Terrible macroeconomic policy and cuts to the poor are what happen when the House of Representatives is taken over by Republicans. The idea that there was a possibility of seeing no cuts at all from the budget passed by a gigantic Democratic majority is science fiction.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Strawmen are not really worth responding to.
39 billion is a number. 19 billion, to pick a number, is also a number.
It is a smaller number.
WereBear
We need to ask ourselves, Is our President learning?
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Yes. Raising taxes is truly one of the easiest things to do in politics.
Politicians always promise to raise taxes.
The defense of Obama’s Deal politically is that allowing taxes to go up would have been politically devastating. So Clinton raising taxes was easy? Really?
joe from Lowell
So, let’s run some numbers.
If we take the $100 billion in cuts the Republicans ran on as their opening bid, and the $40 billion increase in Obama’s first budget, the mid-point would be $30 billion in cuts.
If we switch that so that the Rs’ opening bit was $100 billion in cuts but take last year’s budget as the Ds’, then the mid-point would be $50 billion in cuts.
I think Boehner screwed up here. This time, he was the one who kept “negotiating against himself,” all through the winter, and this spring he put the notion of something in the 30s as the Republicans’ bid on the table.
Maybe that’s why he was so terse in his statement.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
That’s Obama’s story I suppose.
Do you believe it?
Uloborus
@azlib:
I believe the counterargument is that a government shutdown is much, much more damaging to the economy than a small cut to the budget aimed at the least economically sensitive programs. You might reasonably be unconvinced by that argument, but I think a man operating under that theory has at least got his head screwed on right.
Uloborus
@BTD:
Oh, no. The defense of Obama is that raising taxes right now is a meaningless trinket compared to all the other things he achieved.
J.W. Hamner
Fine. Now please explain how a shutdown would have made everything unicorns and ponies.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
The term “straw man,” on the other hand, is actually worth looking up so you can avoid misusing it in a public forum. Like you just did.
When YOU put the notion of “reducing government consumption” – period, full stop, not modification, just a question of whether cuts are happening or not – on the table, it is not a straw man for me to respond to that notion. If you don’t think such a notion is worth discussing, then rather than whining at me, DON’T BRING IT UP.
The number $100 billion is actually a number, too, but it’s not just “picked.” It’s actually the number the Republicans ran on last fall.
You know, writing something like this immediately after whining about a “straw man” doesn’t make you look very honest.
@BTD:
Actually, no. The defense of Obama’s tax deal is that it allowed him to get other stuff.
And I’ll repeat myself, since it doesn’t seem to have penetrated the first time: it is easier to push through one’s policies in the aftermath of a big electoral win than in the aftermath of a big electoral defeat. Hence, Clinton’s ability to raise taxes immediately after his big win, and Obama’s inability immediately after a big loss.
Midnight Marauder
@Kirk Spencer:
We need to get to work right now on making those motherfuckers pay and pay BIG.
Bob
Speaking of halfway to idiotic, the most concise description of the Dems approach is from Anthony Weiner
“Our fights can’t be just to stop their horrible ideas. Don’t we need to have our own agenda?”
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
Actually, it’s an objective description of the facts. You know, there’s thing called the internet, that allows you to check facts, rather than just your gut, and back up your statements with evidence, rather than hoping you’ve struck a sufficiently cocky pose.
Martin
Look, everyone agrees that the budget at some point in the not forever distant future needs to get balanced. We cheered when it happened under Clinton’s watch and to this day we proclaim the solution is to just do what Clinton did. We lost at least part of that fight last year, and its inevitable that when we lost the revenue fight that we’d lose at least some portion of the spending fight as well.
My guess is that Dems in Congress are not broken up about these cuts (I doubt they’re thrilled, but nobody there will be as despondent as many here.) The cuts are simply the residual damage from the tax fight and everybody knew they were going to happen, the only question was the scale. Nothing new happened this week. This is just the cost of not full-out winning that tax fight.
Keith G
DougJ at top:
What is the Obama brand? Or maybe my question needs to be which version of the Obama brand?
He is a good guy who has done some good stuff and he also has left a lot of battles unfought or under fought. Since he will not have a primary fight, he will not have to define himself in any way other then to say that “I am not one of those wierd guys over on the right.”
So as we speed onto 2012, I am left to wonder what will he fight for?
Or, since he really has not fought for anything as of yet (except election), can he even fight at all?
What is the Obama brand? I would really like to know.
patrick II
@Comrade DougJ:
A tax increase on the highest income bracket under these particular economic circumstances would not have been a bad idea. The money is not being invested in new business anyway. FDR raised taxes all during the depression, including excise taxes, income taxes (up to 91% at the beginning of WWII) and social security taxes in ’37.
It is not terrible to tax during downturns as long as you spend it and then some — preferably on things that will help the economy grow long term.
joe from Lowell
@patrick II: The thing is, it wasn’t just taxes on the rich that were due to expire in December, but the entire Bush tax cuts, including those for the middle class and poor. In aggregate numbers, the amount going to the non-rich was about twice that going to rich.
cleek
@BTD:
no, he couldn’t. the bill he was given did the opposite of NOTHING, and he can’t rewrite bills himself.
fer fuck’s sake people, there are 535 other people involved in this shit. Obama can sign what he’s given, or not. but the ultimate responsibility for the content of bills is up to Congress, and given the numbers, compromise is the order of the day.
don’t like it? elect more Democrats the next time you get a chance.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: Actually, it’s an objective description of the facts.
Completely agree with you here, Joe. The opening Dem proposal, the GOP response, etc etc. You’re right about the facts here, and those who want suggest this is devastating for Democrats by selectively choosing which numbers make their complaint stronger are being disingenuous.
joe from Lowell
@cleek:
Yeah, if you can’t even stomach $38.5 billion in cuts as the cost of your “We’ll show those Democrats what happens when you cross The Left!” strategy, then you need a new strategy.
See this deal? See the $40 billion increase Obama proposed? That’s the difference between a Democratic House and a Republican House.
Now, if you think that’s a really big deal, then drop the “Not a dime’s worth of difference” nonsense. You are not allowed the act the least bit concerned about this deal, about these cuts, if you want to keep arguing that line.
But if you don’t think this is a big deal – if you think these cuts are a worthwhile price to pay to make your point to the Democrats about…whatever…then drop the pretense of horror. This is exactly what you not-voted for.
patrick II
@joe from Lowell:
I was respnding to DougJ’s
Which seems to assert generally that tax increases during a recession are always wrong, not the specifics of the particular options Obama had.
However, having said that, in response to your particular objection, I would say that even restoring all of the taxes would be just fine, since the rich would be paying so much more in taxes and you could return more than the small amounts lost by the middle and lower incomes through government programs.
That would be the opposite of what happened with the Bush tax cuts, which is the rich received more money back, but the middle and lower classes lost more from job loss, financial assistance loss, the general degradation of schools, and all of the other things that middle and lower class people depend on more than the rich.
Tax raises in this country are necessary now to support the middle and lower classes and to redress the incredible imbalance of income in our country. If we are in a recession, make sure to spend more of it than you take in on those who need it.
Stillwater
@cleek: Zactly. And anyone who says all this is the result of Obama’s Failure To Lead is gonna get an internet wedgy.
Keith G
Unhelpful.
In 2008 I had a chance to vote to fill 3 federal offices and next year two. I am doing the best I can and I still don’t like it.
Mnemosyne
@BTD:
The defense of the deal is that it allowed DADT repeal, the START treaty, and an extension of unemployment benefits to pass, which would not have happened without agreeing to extend the tax cuts.
If you want to argue that getting those things wasn’t worth it and we should have sacrificed them so we could let the tax cuts expire, make that argument, but don’t pretend that the Democrats got nothing in return.
Midnight Marauder
@Keith G:
Same as it ever was in the United States of America.
AAA Bonds
I don’t think Obama is a weak negotiator. I just think the priorities of Obama voters and the priorities of the Obama administration are different.
We are talking about the White House, here. The people working at its highest levels have long-standing concerns that we do not, about who to bomb, which groups of rich people to help out, etc.
Top on the list of things the White House is concerned about and Obama’s 2008 voters are not is probably: getting Obama reelected.
Suck It Up!
@Bob:
Why doesn’t Anthony Weiner come up with one instead of always acting like a bystander? Where is he when all these deals are going on? He’s been there since 1998, he can’t sit down with Pelosi or the DSCCC (whatever the name is) and come up with an “agenda”? I’d like to see what he comes up with. I’d like to see Anthony Weiner come up with ONE agenda that the entire party from him to Kent Conrad can agree on.
joe from Lowell
@patrick II: I wasn’t disputing you, just elaborating on the point.
Sounds great to me, but that isn’t the reality Obama was operating in. He didn’t have the option to raise everybody’s taxes but also raise spending on programs that provide a broad benefit.
AAA Bonds
@joe from Lowell:
Oh, shit, yeah, I blame left-wing blogs and Bill Ayers for all these cuts.
Man, your back must hurt.
AAA Bonds
@joe from Lowell:
Oh man, I’m stealing that one. That is just priceless. “The reality Obama was operating in.”
CURSE YOU REALITY, CUUUURRRSE YOUUUUU
joe from Lowell
@AAA Bonds:
Well, for my part, I don’t think all of you internet fauxgressives added together could manage to swing a single Congressional district. You’re about as relevant to the outcome of last year’s election as a warehouse full of Garfield dolls.
I’m just pointing out that this is what you aspire to. This is what your strategy, should you ever manage to matter enough to accomplish it, is supposed to do.
joe from Lowell
@AAA Bonds: Uhhhh….good for you?
If you want to make a big deal of demonstrating how crazy you think it is to account for political forces other than the president’s will, then you go on with your bad self.
I sure as hell won’t stop you.
Rihilism
Well, I’ve been in seesaw mode since this “thing” passed last night. OOH, it has the appearance of a “cave” to hostage takers (an “asnide”, is it just me, or is this particular hostage scenario less a “24” episode than this, , with the concerned townspeople played by the dems (asidely aside, apologies to those who are easily offended and please note that I am only referring to the silliness of the situation and NOT to any racial issues…)
OTOH, some here seem to be suggesting that, 1. Obama’s 2011 budget called for 40B increase over 2010, 2. Today’s budget agreement reduced Obama’s proposed budget “increase” by 38.5B. Can someone confirm my interpretation? Although I find neither idea agreeable (any budget cuts are the last thing we need), cutting last year’s budget seems far worse than cutting all increases over last year’s budget. Am I misunderestimating this? Have I gone mad whilst reading the death throes of those who been wronged (wronged I tells ya) by Obama’s insidious mendacity?
While awaiting an answer, might I suggest that “winning the future” is hackneyed and junior-highish. I believe our Comrade has suggested a far more powerful messaging strategy to be placed on bumpers from Peoria to Tuscaloosa,
“THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WE’RE ONLY HALFWAY TO IDIOTIC!”
Discuss…
Suck It Up!
Amazing how quickly people forget all those government workers, military families, the American people, and the recovery of the economy that would have been hurt by a shutdown. How quickly we forget that we were just praying that the Democrats wouldn’t allow the Repubs to gut the EPA, PP and other social programs. All that was avoided and yet somehow the Dems still lose.
Lets remember this also for those who think we would have absolutely won the PR fight once the shut down began:
How many times have we remarked on the American people’s stupidity, fickleness, amnesia and tendency to be easily manipulated emotionally? How many times have we pointed out the media bias against Democrats? And that Republicans have their own TV station and pretty much own the radio? How about all that funding from Koch backed groups? And let’s not forget that Dems are weak on messaging. Knowing all this would you have advised Dems to allow a shutdown to happen?
And I wish people would stop using the 100 billion benchmark to determine who won. It is not as simple as that and the Tea Party sure as hell didn’t get what they really wanted.
Rihilism
Oopsie,linky…
joe from Lowell
@Rihilism:
No, it’s $38.5 billion below last year’s budget, $78.5 billion below the budget figure Obama first proposed.
Baud
@Suck It Up!: Sir, that sort of rational thinking does not belong on the Internet.
patrick II
@joe from Lowell:
Well, now we get into the chicken and egg argument. Is he ever going to be able to raise taxes while suscribing to the “we must reduce the deficit first by cutting programs” republican trope he repeated in his budget speech last night? If you continue to cut programs, the economy is not going to get good enough to raise taxes. If the debt is ever reduced (unlikely in these circumstances) the republicans will just call for further tax breaks and Obama has just justified their argument.
Whether or not he won the budget fight, the speech was a disaster, re-affirming republican ideals that will keep us in debt and job poor for a long time. You may be right that he doesn[t have that choice now, but he is not helping his chances for any long term success by arguing for the other side.
Baud
@AAA Bonds:
Getting Obama reelected is certainly near the top of this Obama 2008 voter’s concerns. Especially because it is extremely likely we will lose the Senate.
OzoneR
@AAA Bonds:
This is a bizarre comment. Getting Obama reelected is a priority of Obama voters. If it wasn’t, then Obama wouldn’t prioritize it.
cleek
@AAA Bonds:
you will have a difficult time finding an institution of any kind where this is not true.
OzoneR
@Keith G:
That’s life.
Bob Loblaw
@Bob:
They did. It was called “saying Win The Future! over and over again.”
It lasted a week and a half.
joe from Lowell
@patrick II:
In a better political atmosphere, Obama’s willingness to “hold the line on spending” will give him more hand to argue for tax hikes, just like Clinton’s campaign and 1993 budget bill did.
And in a better political atmosphere, he’ll be a stronger position overall.
I wouldn’t want to see him adopt last night’s message as his campaign platform, but it will do as political cover to be exploited down the line. If the response from the Republicans to letting the tax cuts lapse in 2012 is “tax and spend liberal,” actions like this budget deal and last night’s speech will make it harder for that to stick.
I read last night’s speech as defensive.
joe from Lowell
@OzoneR:
It’s easy to understand once you realize that AAA Bonds thinks that he is the median Obama voter, and that his opinion represents something more than a sliver of a fringe of a faction of a wing of Obama voters.
OzoneR
@Bob:
what Weiner forgets is for many Democrats, their agenda is to stop their horrible ideas.
That’s it.
patrick II
@joe from Lowell:
I hope you are right. I only play 2 dimensional chess myself.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t know why in the blogosphere everyone insists that every speech and statement are honest expressions of deeply-held views. Does Obama think that making major cuts during an economic slump is a wonderful idea? Of course not, he’s not an idiot. Might he nonetheless _say_ that cuts are a good idea because the public likes the idea of the government “tightening its belt” and all that? Of course. He’s going to _say_ that whatever outcome happens is some kind of win, he’s going to say that compromises are necessary, and he’s going to say that it’s important to work together, BECAUSE VOTERS LIKE THAT SHIT.
FlipYrWhig
True, it sucks. _How_ do you do a better job? It’s cheap to say that something better would have been better. How do you get that better thing? Hmm, guess it’s kinda complicated once you put it that way. And, no, the answer isn’t “have some balls.” That’s not a strategy, that’s a taunt.
Rihilism
@joe from Lowell: Gotcha, thanks.
EEEEEWWWWW, that’s icky! Well, I must say the whole “Blazing Saddles” negotiating technique seems rather understated. Perhaps BS mixed with 24 is more appropriate (with Boner stating, “Stop me before the tea-poopers make me kill us all…).
I wish I knew what the answer was in this scenario. I’m utterly frustrated with Obama and the Dem’s inability to get off the defensive as well a complete lack of political acumen (fer dogsakes, when are they going to make the Rethugs pay any long lasting penalty for their intransigence?). As a liberal I’ve grown accustomed to (though not accepting of) this particularly pernicious (and often unnecessary) impotence.
Yet, we’re dealing with lunatics that truly, honestly, and without hesitation wish to harm others as a means to a dark end. Perhaps they are bluffing, but given their words AND deeds, past and present, I don’t think they are.
Yeesh! What’s a girl to do…
ChrisNYC
@BTD: So any cuts will hurt the economy. That’s the argument? So all we need to do to fix the economy is just raise spending and raise spending again and again. That’s the solution? I don’t think that makes any sense. Also, what are the cuts in the services to the poor? You sound like you know what the actual cuts were? Do you? Would you mind telling me what they were?
patrick II
@ChrisNYC:
“again and again” is overstating it, but yes, we should raise spending to improve a depressed economy. Good investment spending is better, but any spending will help.
Google “Keynes digging holes”
OzoneR
@patrick II:
Have you ever tried to explain that to a swing/low-information/apolitical voter? They usually laugh at you or look at you like you need to be institutionalized.
ChrisNYC
@patrick II: Yeah, I understand Keynes, in an amateur “I have a BA in econ” sort of a way. I just don’t think Keynes said that any cut to govt spending, no matter what the economic context is and no matter what the cut is, is per se a “bad” cut. But, arguendo, if that’s the rule, then the only good deal is Obama’s budget, right? Or better yet, two times Obama’s budget. Or three times. Well, Ezra could have written his piece weeks ago. Everyone knew there were going to be cuts. So this deal is bad because cuts from the numbers in Obama’s budget equal bad — what the cuts actually were is irrelevant. Got it. Still doesn’t make sense to me, tho.
Joel
The reality is, for the short term, the passage of ACA knocked liberals out of the picture. No matter how we interpret things, it seems to me that a sizable number of people are perfectly satisfied with this outcome. As Yglesias pointed out the other day, Democrats are spineless because voters like them that way.
FlipYrWhig
@Joel:
_Their_ voters like them that way. That’s an important distinction to make. People who vote for Democrats have a fetish for working together, making compromises, and finding common ground. People who vote for Republicans don’t.
patrick II
@ChrisNYC:
Well, you can play the “Reductio ad absurdum” game if you want. No one asserts that any spending in any amount on any useless thing is a good idea, even Keynes:
BTD
@ChrisNYC:
When aggregate demand is the problem, raising aggregate demand is the right policy.
Sorry that it does not make sense to you. But that’s the explanation.
BTD
@Mnemosyne:
The START treaty? I know you don’t believe that.
DADT maybe.
UI? I doubt it.
It was a bad deal. I said so then and I say so now.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
More straw men. When you actually address something I wrote, let me know.
One last time, Obama did not need to push through anything to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
You now argue that the stuff he supposedly got in eexchange was worth it. I argued then and I argue now, everything that is happening now (and will happen on the budget going forward) was part of that same Deal.
You may think it was worth it. I do not.
Now stop with the straw men.
FlipYrWhig
@BTD: You are
So irritating
With your single
Line paragraphs.
someone
Except, of course, that Clinton raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget. Not that Clinton was any sort of good president but it sure looks like Obama is Clinton. But I suppose it’s a question of priorities. Ending DADT was never a priority for me (though I know people directly affected by it) and passing ACA is also not an accomplishment. You think Clinton couldn’t have passed ACA, ie the Republican plan at the time? Obama is short on accomplishments, but I don’t think it’s because he’s a weak negotiator. I think it’s because he supports the policies passed under his administration. It’s called “Fuck you I got mine.”
OzoneR
@someone:
No, next question
Master of Karate and Friendship
So now the only question is: is DougJ a racist, or is he a Republican operative sent here to undermine the Democratic party’s white-hot winning streak from the inside?
Master of Karate and Friendship
@trollhattan:
“And yeah, everybody’s eyeballing the looming debt ceiling battle as an even worse one. Good times.”
Impossible. When Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich last December, he assured us the Republicans were done with their hardball hostage-taking.
@azlib:
“political malpractice on the WH’s part. Do they not get that federal spending cuts translate into a drag on economic growth and more specifically job growth?”
Barack Obama does NOT believe government spending can create jobs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/27/remarks-president-signing-small-business-jobs-act
Master of Karate and Friendship
@cleek:
Cleek, those tax cuts were scheduled to expire. On their own.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Comrade DougJ:
“A tax increase during this recession would have been a great idea, right?”
Yeah, those rich people are really hurting. Fortunately all the money they are spending on yachts and Dom Perginon is trickling down to everyone else, so it’s all good. Happy days will be here again in no time.
Stillwater
@Master of Karate and Friendship: You gotta calm down Wyldpirate.
Master of Karate and Friendship
Why should I calm down Wyldpirate? Is he too excited about something? I don’t know how to calm him down anyway.
Loonesta
Obama may have ended DADT, but please don’t forget that Bill Clinton caused it, by cowardly caving in to military umbrage after making a campaign promise to let GLBT folks serve “openly” in the armed services. DADT shouldn’t be used here at all.
azlib
@Uloborus
I can agree a shutdown would be much more damaging, but my point was the Dems and the WH gave up on the Keynesian argument a long time ago and bought into the Republican austerity meme. Cuts in spending were inevitable, once the WH adopted even a milder version of the austerity argument.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
Oh, stop whimpering, you tool. I actually quoted you making the point you’re now pretending is a straw man. You see those little punctuation marks that look like this: “,,,” – ya see those? The words inside those are your own words, so stop whimpering at me about a “straw man.”
If you aren’t willing to stand by what you wrote, don’t write it. Invoking a phrase you don’t understand very well as some sort of magical incantation to save you from your own faulty arguments, when they’re quoted back to you, isn’t going to convince anyone.
And neither is playing dumb when people point out what Obama was able to get through the Senate because of the budget deal. Oh, you “doubt” that START got through? Whoop-de-doo! What an impressive argument.
cliff
@Carol from CO: Hello!! I wonder sometimes if there’s anybody out there or what. Not only should ACA have been passed months earlier, after six months or a year of politely giving republicans a chance to obstruct generally and refuse everything, but the version obama gave us is so flawed as to be worse than meaningless. without a public option, and with all the insurers’ and pharmaceuticals’ profits guaranteed by law, it will ultimately serve mostly just as the Right’s proof that we can’t afford any of that stuff. it was a cowardly and short-sighted piece of legislation, and he didn’t even use the opportunity to inform the public of what the real issues and truths are in that debate.
as for DADT, he actually abandoned the effort- when it was considered dead in december, a woman senator, from NY i think, took the issue up herself and moved what was needed to get it passed. that was no thanks to obama, although you could say that clinton (who i don’t particularly love either) at least put a lot of energy and political capital into the effort, and did manage to lay the groundwork for taking the next step.
of course, i’m no doubt preaching to the choir here, but i find it amazing that obama gets credit for legislative accomplishments, given his dismal-or-worse performance. lots of well-meaning, hopelessly desperate people clinging to straws in this country.