What was the goal here for Obama and the Democrats?

[jpgray]

Nothing in this deal will improve the economy. Lack of demand has led to what you'd expect--businesses sitting on cash and not hiring. Cutting government spending does nothing to address this. We have serious debt problems in the long term, but at the moment it's like being both a little hungry and dying of thirst in the desert. We've decided to chase kangaroo rats around instead of look for water.

We lost in 2010 in large part because we couldn't make the case that Obama's policies improved the economy, even though they did. How are we going to make our case that austerity wins the future when employment stagnates or gets significantly worse by 2012? Our luck with pinning the appropriate blame on the GOP is always terrible, but whereas in 2010 we could make a case that we, in part, tried to do the right thing and partially succeeded, I'm confused as to what our case is going to be in 2012 when the economy is worse off while we hold the presidency and the Senate. There is also the dissonance when bad deals are claimed as victory on the grounds of bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility--these are largely concerns of pundits, not voters. Voters want to see things improve. Failing that they want to blame someone, and they don't really pay much attention to what happened or why (see the polls on whether Obama raised taxes from a year or so ago).

Politically this deal makes no sense to me at all, in other words. Virtually none of the electorate will care about or remember the process--most will vote on the current misery, and believe correctly this time that we've done nothing to allay it. We can claim that we didn't lose all of what shouldn't have been at risk, but that's a lousy argument and most people won't remember, if they were ever aware, what was at risk anyway.

And if our leaders know this deal is poison, why call it a win? Why give the public the impression that things are going generally how we'd like?

[FreakinDJ]

1. Do DEMS or the GOP have to make the case

seems to me TeaFarty/GOP got 100% of what they wanted

[EFerrari]

7. They could have done more damage, maybe, but mostly what they got

was a template to screw with the president.


/Sorry about these typos. Can't tell if this keyboard is dying or if it's tendonitis flaring up that makes me type more lightly. Think it's the keyboard. :(

[FreakinDJ]

9. The economy is moving into recession

and the unemployment figures are out friday. I'm thinking America will be asking questions pretty soon

[EFerrari]

10. I've been out of full time work for years now.

I never thought I would be dealing with Reaganomics again. The first time was bad enough. This is like frickin' Ground Hog Day.

[EFerrari]

2. Obama seems to agree with the other side

that running on fiscal conservatism ("lowest spending since Eisenhower") is a good political strategy. If that is true, this is a win for him although it's not a win for us.

[roguevalley]

14. Obama has idiots for economic advisors and he has a crusade

going on to become whatever fantasy about himself that he has going for his legacy. He had a job and probably will for four more years. But the rest of us? He doesn't care. He has to know what this means but he doesn't care. He pushed for this shit sandwich and now we either eat it or shut this country down.

[dionysus]

3. to avoid default?

[babylonsister]

4. Ding ding ding! nt

[EFerrari]

5. Bonds didn't even blink yesterday and Biden said Obama would use

the 14th. So, no, not to avoid default. He already knew he could stop that, and Wall Street showed no worry at all.

ETA last phrase.

[Parker CA]

13. Ding ding ding. nt

[roguevalley]

15. I just heard the stock market is going south. I don't even have the

energy to care.

[jpgray]

6. Just to be clear--you believe in every particular the way Obama acted was utterly necessary

-It was necessary to defer the debt ceiling debate until after the tax cut deal.
-It was necessary to shift immediately off asking for a clean bill when Boehner said no.
-It was necessary to buy in to austerity, -relishing- a chance to cut rather than a simple increase of the ceiling.
-It was necessary to claim this deal as a win for the economy.

All these things were necessary? Absent them we'd default?

[myrna minx]

19. - It was necessary for the President to work within the radical right wing framework and not from

the Democratic economic platform framework and thus validating their worldview.

[stranger81]

17. Since there were other means of accomplishing that objective,

this is a pretext, not their actual rationale for accepting the deal.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. He was offerred a deal that was "Too good to refuse" and jumped at it.

[roguevalley]

16. he had the right to use the fourteenth amendment just like

Harry truman did. He didn't because this sticking pile of crap is what he wanted.

[Gregorian]

12. It looks like He forced the right to show their cards. I know, n-dimensional chess theory.

It's what I see. The conservatives have been forced to show their true colors. Not in a year, but now. The crazy is for all to see. I honestly think Obama has a backup plan. That is pure guessing. And unlikely given what the best economists are saying. But there is a lot going on. And it may just be that no matter what he does, the country is in deep trouble.

My take on it is that this is going to be to the Democrat's advantage.

Now as for my views come tomorrow, it may all be reversed. I'm going back and forth on this whole mess.

[jeff47]

18. Your theory has one gaping, massive hole

Obama signed the bill. Fought for the bill. Worked on getting that steaming pile of crap onto his desk to sign.

Doesn't matter if the Republicans look 'crazy'. He's right there in the clown car with them.

[Gregorian]

20. That does appear to be a giant gaping hole.

The only thing I could think of that would defend that is the following-

During the campaign he can say that he was forced in to it. There are a number of schemes by which he can use that ploy. Remember, he made it clear it wasn't the direction he wanted to go, but the only one in which he could in order to satisfy the republicans.

I'm not really hanging on to the chess playing. After all, I did vote for Kucinich in the primaries. And we'll see just what happens.

[truedelphi]

22. With valuable citations of Larry Summers saying way back in early 2009

That Obama was going to get in on the reforming of Social Security and MediCare.

Why does any audience anywhere in the US laugh hysterically (and with a touch or righteousness) when Lewis Black states that "The Republicans, once elected, announce that they have a Really Really Bad Idea. And then the Democrats step up to the plate and say, "Well, we have a way to make it even crappier" ??

[loyalsister]

21. You can do everything right...

"But there is one final hurdle, that once you've settled in Washington, you can not entirely avoid, one that is certain to make at least a sizable portion of your constituency think ill of you - and that is the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the legislative process." - Barack Obama

"Few, if any, face the same dread finality of decision that confronts a senator facing an important call of the roll. He may want some more time for his decision- he may believe that there is something to be said for both sides- he might feel that a slight amendment could remove all difficulties- but when that roll is called he can not hide, he can not equivocate, he can not delay- and he senses that his constituency, like the Raven in Poe's poem is perched there on his senate desk, croaking "nevermore" as he casts the vote that stakes his political future." - John F. Kennedy

Perspective.

Yes, we are talking about senators rather than presidents, but the fact is it is the same situation as Obama's role was to help negotiate and finally approve legislation.

I suspect that Obama was not enjoying the past couple of weeks much. Trying to make that deal with the kind of opposition he had, knowing that some people who voted for him were going to spill hateful vitriol all over the internet and editorials, he had to make an ugly decision. "He should have, he could have,"etc... Does not factor in the reality of what truly happens when you're trying to solve a problem of this magnitude with people willing to let it happen just so you fail. How in good conscience does someone put the country through default to prove a point or to satisfy a minority of voters? What is gained politically by dragging to country into the SC with him. People don't usually take part in litigation by forced circumstances unless they have something to gain. Raising a constitutional question at that level brings us all into it. I didn't want to effectively be dragged into court over this.

This deal sucks in many ways. I don't know what the political consequences will be. I do know that it could have been much much worse, and not having to do this again until 2013 is a good thing.
I also know that I would hate to be president and I think pres. Obama did the best he could under the worst of conditions.