OMG folks, it's just going to get worse. Obama and the NPR interview.

I listened to, then read the transcript of Obama's NPR interview, which was aired this morning.

The prognosis isn't good. He wants to cut spending, and mentions that he admires the Catfood Commission for "sparking a conversation". He also mentions that he wants to rework the entire tax code, "simplifying" it and "reforming" it.:banghead:

But I think that this one quote is really telling:

"INSKEEP: Let me ask you about something that we heard from one of our listeners.

We told our listeners we were going to have this conversation today. We got many questions for you. One came from a man named Tom Pluck of Montclair, New Jersey — a man who describes himself as a supporter.

The question that we got was: "Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job."

OBAMA: It doesn't, which is why I was opposed to it — and I'm still opposed to it."

So much for the stimulus value of this deal, Obama is undermining his own talking points.

Read the whole sordid mess for yourself
<http://www.npr.org/2010/12/10/131949362/transcript-obama-on-taxes-economy-and-start>

:(

n/t

:D

I do not trust ANY sociopaths.No matter how many people tell me to like or trust them.

nothing he says from now on will be taken seriously.

and decides not to run in 2012.

He's hurt enough regular folks.

Obama calls in Clinton to justify W's Tax Cuts for the Rich.

Surreal.

i.e. THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES. They are the ones most affected when the taxes go up in January, not the rich.

people are living paycheck to paycheck. we all know, and President Obama knows, that the rich do not need the tax cuts. but to deny them to the lower and middle classes, and deny health insurance from those who are suffering most, is akin to telling King Solomon to go ahead, cut the baby in half, because we know we're right and that's all that matters. Everyone loses that way. EVERYONE.. most of whom are the weak and vulnerable.

You want to believe that President Obama is on the side of the rich, go ahead.. your bias is showing. He is TRYING to help those stuck in the lower and middle classes who are living paycheck to paycheck and are about to lose money that they need to survive. He is standing up FOR THEM!!

That, combined with the loss of the earned tax credit, will result in smaller paychecks for families with incomes under $40k, and most certainly lays the groundwork for de-funding and ultimately destroying SS.

time and time again he mistakenly says it contributes to the deficit. This is wrong. This provision will make sure it contributes to the deficit so Obama can ultimately destroy Social Security. Is this what he wants? I am effin terrified.

He thinks we're all so "retarded" (a mean-spirited term used by Obama's buddy Rahm), he can tell us up is down and we'll all say, Yes sir, Bossman, whatever you say. We'll swallow whatever you say and ask for seconds.

I worked for 10 years for a state legislature, drafting and analyzing legislation. I know a poison pill when I see one, and this "tax holiday" is the most lethal to the largest number of people that I have ever seen.

I'm fed up with all these whining comments: "Oh, as long as we get the unemployed benefits extended for 13 months for some of the unemployed, we have to do whatever the GOP demands." The 99ers are getting squat from this agreement. The GOP has been handed the means to gut and privatize social security (and Obama's hinting that would be a good thing). A year from now, those benefits will be brought to a screeching halt by the GOP, and they'll justify privatizing SS because it will have been so weakened by this "tax holiday".

And as others have pointed out, in the very short term, Boehner & the GOP would have caved and extended the benefits if Obama had stood up to him.

They have even passed the Senate, though they fell a few votes short of the super majority. This is where the president comes in if he wants to help push HIS campaign promises through. He goes out, hits the bully pulpit, goes into the states of vulnerable Senators and harangues them for their intransigence. Presidents from Clinton to Carter, Johnson to FDR have all done this. Clinton called Gingritch's bluff on the budget, and Gingritch never fully recovered. Johnson went into the states of vulnerable Senators and brought down fire and brimstone upon the heads of recalcitrant Senators until they gave in and voted for the Civil Rights Act.

But what did Obama do? The two-step, faceplant cave, over two weeks before the buzzer sounds for the end of this fight. That is not leadership, that is cowardice. We need a fighter in the White House, not a folder.

it is not going to happen. anyone who thinks he just needs to "fight" or "try harder" is in la la land. The repukes WILL NOT BEND.

So what do we do? Cut the baby in half in protest? Let the poor and middle class pay the price?

Geez, go read your political history. There have been many games of political chicken, and Democratic presidents have gone out, used the bully pulpit in the states of vulnerable Senators, and won.

FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, even Carter and Clinton, who, as I said, dealt Newt a fatal political blow, all these presidents fought and won major political battles using the bully pulpit. To continue to say that such tactics don't work, well that simply shows how little you know of political history, and how defeatist you attitude is.

President Obama said over and over again how unfair DADT is. The american people believe it's unfair, by A VERY CLEAR MARGIN, yet the repukes voted 100% AGAINST it. Not ONE crossed the aisle to vote with the republicans. They voted AGAINST clear public opinion. Do you think any one of them had a hard time sleeping last night? NO! They don't want to give the President anything to sign. They do not want to give him any victories. Mark my words, they will filibuster THEIR OWN bills if they think it actually has a chance of passing.

Oh, yeah, appealed a clear, constitutional court ruling that would have ended DADT. Failed to use the power of the executive branch to end DADT.

That's not fighting, that's barely going through the motions of a fight. Look at Clinton taking on Gingritch over the budget, he called Newt's bluff, shut down the government and hammered, just hammered Newt and the 'Pugs up and down, back and forth across the country. Newt never fully recovered.

That's fighting, not this one step forward, two steps back approach Obama has taken concerning DADT and other issues.

you're in dreamland if you think all he had to do was sign an executive order.

Much like Truman did to integrate the Army. Granted, that EO would have only lasted to the end of his term, but by that time, thousands of service members would have been out and the genie couldn't have been put back in the bottle.

Or he simply could have refused to appeal the court ruling concerning the Log Cabin case, but nooooo, he had to have his justice department fight that one.

Or he could have pushed for DADT repeal through Congress six months ago, and it would have been done by now.

But instead he failed, failed to keep another promise, worse yet, failed many fine members of our armed services.

since there's currently a statute mandating DADT (rather than simply an executive policy that the executive can reverse).

And we've argued plenty about the appeal before.

(And the Senate did try to take up the defense bill months ago.)

But you are correct that he can issue a stop-loss executive order that stops discharges as long as the wars continue and we keep calling up reserve forces. This isn't the same as repealing the law (I don't think it has the same effect on allowing formerly-discharged troops to reapply), but it is certainly better than nothing.

or don't bother replying at all.

You are just word salad, near as I can tell.

Don't waste my time with informational chaff.

First of all, I am under no obligation to talk to you when you demand it.

Second of all, I already replied to your other post, so WTF are you talking about.

Talk about incomprehensible, a poster demanding a reply for some non-existent post:rofl:

We used to make sure we invited guys like him to poker games. Easy marks.

how did he PERFORM in those famed poker games at the Illinois legislature? We know he played...but how did he do?

Two other GOP senators (Brown and someone) say they support it but are too chickenshit to vote that way. There's three GOP votes right there, with no pressure on them by anyone except their own party leaders.

...having shamed Republicans into anything. You even tried to make some BS up about the Brady bill as a desperate attempt to prove it, and you were shot down by the facts.

Why is it you feel like you can continue making claims like this without proving it?

The fact is, the Republicans shot down medical help for 9/11 responders yesterday, in the Senate.

YOU CAN NOT SHAME THOSE WHO ARE NOT CAPABLE OF SHAME.

Your psuedo speechifying nonsense isn't changing that reality.

You would see that I go over exactly what Clinton did multiple times in this thread. Since you seem slow on the uptake, I'll repeat it just for you. Clinton, budget cuts, Newt, call his bluff, government shutdown, Newt never recovers. Go look it up in the history book for further details and educate yourself. It will help your attempts at witty reparte.

The "bully pulpit" is your "magic wand." Baloney. The President could talk all day and it's not going to do a damn thing. He's not going to be able to force the Republicans to vote against the rich tax cuts by speaking about it day to day.

Just a dream. You wish that a President could get everything he wants and wanted all you want.

IF every there was a time that demanded a nuclear option--the time is now.

...that John Boehner was asked recently whether he would vote for a tax cut for only the middle class, and he said yes, if there was no other choice. Now it is true that the House voted down the proposition. For a little insight, please check out this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/09/national/w000840S03.DTL

=====
WH says tax bill to pass despite Democrats' revolt

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Associated Press December 9, 2010 03:17 PM Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The House passed a measure last week that would have let the tax cuts lapse at higher incomes, but Senate Republicans blocked it on Saturday — with the knowledge the president had already agreed he was ready to sign a measure that was more to their liking.
=====

How about them apples? Thanks, President Obama! You've been really, really helpful, making closed-door deals with the Republicans while freezing out your OWN PARTY.

Bah.

will laugh its ass off if we can't get the tax cuts passed by January....Blame it all on the Democrats and on Obama.
Rush, McConnell and the GOP wants Obama to be a one term President, and it seems like most here do , too...maybe they should all get together.


mark

And refusing to fight for his own campaign promise. And you think it is the rest of the Democrats who are on the wrong side of this issue.:eyes:

we'd be like them! Hee hee.

dec., it's all going to come down to how the media plays the blame game. I for one do not think the media is going to be on the side of dems.

he had a ONE day honeymoon at his anaugural but that was it!

because at this point the army will probably be so divided as to not obey. It'll all be about taking away our rights, anyhow.

Depending on how Obama reacts to Wikileaks (prosecution == tyranny), the U.S. as we know it is doomed. It'll come back, but not before having a near-death experience.

raise taxes on the rich, back to Clinton-era (or higher).

That way consumer demand is encouraged by keeping $$ in pockets of the middle class, AND
simultaneously encourages companies to re-invest revenue that they realize from this demand *back* into their companies (instead of profit-taking which would just be taxed now).. reinvesting in their companies means r&d, equipment, and *hiring*!! All very stimulative.

Increased demand = more hiring.

but how are we going to get 60 votes for raising taxes on the rich? It's not going to happen. So we cut the baby in half in protest?

The tax cuts for the rich will expire anyway.

What we need 60 votes for is cutting taxes for the middle class.

in January. It's not going to happen.

Many of the changes we desperately need and that were promised in the campaign should and could have been handled during the previous years. Obama should have come out strong, claimed a mandate, laid out the key parts of his program, forgotten about the bipartisan crap that he and everyone else knew was nonsense, and implemented with 50 Senate votes everything that was allowable in reconciliation. Most definitely tax cuts and the public option could have been done through reconciliation and therefore would have required only votes of Democrats. Sure, there would have been some Democrats who needed massaging before they would go along but that's how the game is always played.

Obama never went through these obvious steps that have always been the way things get done in this kind of situation. It is not possible that he is so naive as to not understand this. Clearly the reason he didn't do it this way is because he had a quid pro quo with his corporate sponsors that he wouldn't in exchange for the campaign funding that he received from them.

and now this. 100% Republican grown problems, and he's absorbed 100% of the accountability for them. I wouldn't want to be him, but it's a sweet gig for the GOP.

...Obama has chosen the fall I guess.

Too bad he takes the rest of us with him down that toilet he's fallen into. (or rather jumped willingly into)

I can live with that. He's the one who needs the rich to get reelected.

Funny how many deficit hawks we grew around here lately. I agree with the Repubs who say it's hypocritical to not worry about the deficit for your stuff and pull it out for the stuff you don't like. I don't like Repubs being able to use the hypocritical word. That should be reserved for them.

Here's a breakdown of the costs. It seems like DU'ers think the entire 900b is given to the top 2% for tax cuts. That's not the case.

Breakdown here: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama

So he doesn't think the top 2% part is stimulative, he thinks the other parts are (middle class tax cuts, unemployment, earned income tax credit, etc)

75 is 12% of 900. That's QUITE a disproportionate reward to 2%, I'd say.

So 75 billion is less than 10%

Are also 'Pug wet dreams. The 'Pugs have been pushing the SS payroll tax holiday for over a decade as a why of first defunding, then destroying SS. The rest of those tax cuts were sweeteners tossed into the stimulus bill so that Obama could attract a total of three, count them, three 'Pug votes in Congress and claim the "victory" of "bipartisanship. Again, those other tax cuts are simply more candy for 'Pugs.

And let's not forget, Obama could take that UI extension gun right out of the hands of the 'Pugs. He could call McConnell's bluff from last year and pay for that UI extension out of surplus stimulus money. By doing so, he would make it a case of tax cuts for the rich vs tax cuts for the poor, an easy, easy fight, easier than that other overwhelmingly popular program that never was, the public option.

And as far as stimulative value, every single credible economist will tell you that tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective form of economic stimuli going. We are plunging ourselves further into debt for what, piss poor programs that cost too much. How stupid is that?

This is a horrible deal, and Obama knows it. But apparently he is more afraid of fighting than of the consequences of failing to fulfill one of his key campaign promises. How sad is that.

The basic problem here is Obama did not have the votes for Middle Class only tax cuts. The Senate voted on that on Saturday, and it failed.

He doesn't want to go out like Clinton and Johnson did, using the bully pulpit to get his signature issues passed. Rather than fighting, Obama did the faceplant cave, over two weeks before the buzzer rings.

It might have made a difference,

On the other hand, I do not think Republicans can be shamed. They know just as well as you and I do that 2011 was not a "Mandate to Give More Shit To The Rich" They just do what they want, they don't care about what is best or wanted by the majority of the people. I have gone round and round with my Republican Senator on every piece of legislation that has come up since Obama took office. They have their agenda - destroy the Democrats, consolidate their power and protect the rich.

He IS fighting for what he promised.

Just like he promised a public option,
Just like he promised to close Gitmo,
Just like he promised to repeal DADT,
Just like he promised to be a fierce advocate,
Just like he promised. . .

contentless meme. It means nothing at all. The bully pulpit is the new magic wand.

Why didn't Clinton get single payer, then? Why didn't Johnson?

On Hostage taking of UI.

That interview was chilling.

he is acknowledging that tax cuts for the rich have little in the way of stimulus value.

However, a payroll tax deduction does have stimulative effects. That is a different policy.

The most stimulative part of this monstrosity of a "deal" is the UI extension, in fact it is one of the most stimulative of economic tools at hand. But the fact of the matter is that Obama could remove the discussion of UI extensions by simply paying for them out of left over stimulus funds, something that McConnell wanted him to do last summer, so gee, Obama could say he is being bipartisan.

But the rest of that package, sorry, it isn't terribly stimulative at all. In fact tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective forms of economic stimuli, bar none. And in the long term, by adding nearly a trillion to the debt, we are only adding to the headwinds that are holding our economy back.

Oh, one other thing, the payroll tax deduction has long been a pet ploy of the 'Pugs to first defund, then destroy SS. Obama just handed them a huge victory, and we can expect SS to go south next year. I guess it took Nixon to go to China, it takes Obama to destroy Social Security.

I'd love to have a lower overall rate with fewer incentives, loopholes, deductions, etc. While it's useful at times to use the tax code to incent and disincent behavior (eg the health insurance "mandate"), really its purpose should be for revenue, and it's kind of losing that under the weight of incentives.

Heck, simplifying the tax code might get rid of the mandate so many people here hate...

Especially if the massive loopholes for the rich and corporate are closed.

However to put this issue in the hands of a president who has consistently caved to the 'Pugs, that scares the shit out of me. I simply have no faith in the man anymore.

There were parts of that that were pretty bad, but on the whole I think that's a framework I could live with.

Flatter rates means that rich people will have their income tax rates reduced to the same levels working poor people can afford to pay. You can also at the same time simplify the tax code "with fewer incentives, loopholes, deductions, etc.", but the very next year lobbyists and their hireling politicians will begin putting them right back in again. It will not take them long. So all you are likely to accomplish over the long haul with your call to "Simplify!" is a flattening out of the progressive, graduated income tax, and what you and the Republicans really want: that "lower overall rate". Which will mean budget deficits in perpetuity, since no one is about to fold tents on the Empire and all the spending it requires, and it guarantees Republican histrionics from now to doomsday about our endless borrowing and constant raids on entitlements.

It's been the battle cry of every reactionary 'tax reformer' in the past 30 years.
The line is being clearly drawn and it ain't between Democrats and Republicans, it is between the rich and the rest of us.

you can tell that this is a bad deal for the American people when all I hear from the right is silence (excluding a few), this will be seen as the turning point in this administration. This will not end well

because they only thing they give a shit about is tax cuts for the wealthy and not governing, which Obama has to do as president.

I did not learn anything new from this...of cousre Obama is against tax cuts for the rich....he was campaigning against it all of September through November and got the people on his side of the issue...the problem again is the republicans and the fillubuster.....if someone wants to explain to me how a president can get a tax cut for only the middle class after it has been successfully fillubusterd in the senate, please explain this to me....you can make alot of money if you have an answer.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

People are pissing all over themselves, frothing at the mouth because Obama has not kept his campaign promises. He didn't do what he SAID he would do.


Now he's saying he wants to do this or that, and those same people are going crazy like it's already happened.


If everything he said before was bullshit, why isn't what he's saying now bullshit too?


And as if that's not foolish enough, the Republicans, who are generally seen as nothing more than lying scumbags here, are suddenly telling the truth when they say Obama is trying to destroy Social Security!!!1111!!!


sigh...

:eyes:

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

Here's where people are claiming that Republicans know exactly what Obama is going to do....



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9729673&mesg_id=9729673


I get what's going on there...it's all a political game, IMO.

But it looks like some people think those Republican senators who are saying such things are speaking from the lips of God himself.

Insanity. Hyperbole.


In any event, there's still the question as to why, if nothing Obama has said in the past was true...anything he would say or do now would be true either.

It may "look" to you like Obama wants to destroy SS, but is it really true? Do you...or anyone else here...have some kind of hotline into his thoughts?

Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, and sometimes a compliment to the "Catfood Commission" on its willingness to have a discussion on certain issues is only a compliment on their willingness to discuss certain issues. Why are people making a huge deal over something that hasn't happened, and may NOT happen?

Name just one.

No, it is Democrats and progressives in general who are coming to this realization.

I only said there were people who were saying that.

Re <i>Yeah, name one Republican who is saying "Obama is trying to destroy Social Security!!!1111!!!"</i>

Their rhetoric is always about "saving Social Security." The fox guarding the henhouse (again).

FAIL

It seems like a lot of Obama supporters around here get incoherent in their fury that we dare disagree with Obama.

So if you could, slow down, take a deep breath, and give a more cognizant post so I can understand what you're trying to say here.

He's doing a fantastical job.

like "Obama is undermining his own talking point" by saying that the tax-cuts for the rich will not stimulate the economy-

Expect to be called out on it.

It's a lie. He's never stated that tax-cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy- that is Madhounds statement not his.

will STIMULATE THE ECONOMY- that was your claim in the OP.

That was your KEY POINT-

Or did you miss that?

'FAIL "who me"? "you're incoherent in your fury"..

'faceplant' 'head-bang'

They're furious because you're deliberately misrepresenting what he said. Drudge couldn't have done a better job.

you said it clearly and simply.

:hi:

:patriot:

numerous times.

He has said the REMAINING part of the bill (NOT the 140 billion for the rich, but the rest of the 900 billion or so) is what's stimulative.

:shrug:

And the rec's this post has recieved underscores how quickly people take a meme and run with it- so much for intelligent discussion and thought.

It's good to see that some people are paying attention.

:hi:

but a point lost on those that filter their input to keep out facts incompatible with their entrenched point of view.

Mrs. Pelosi has the power to deny a floor vote and hand the
American economy a giant tax increase on January 1,2011
EMAIL...http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
TELL HER TO KILL THE BILL

Contact Us
Office of the Speaker

(202) 225-0100

Let's give the Republican a reason to hate her besides just being woman

January, and this will allow them to pass JUST the Bush tax cuts and none of the additional stuff Obama wanted.

Like Clinton did, but he won't.

This same refrain will happen in 2011, when he again argues that unemployment extensions trump everything else. It's just a sign of his own pathetic weakness.

toast

The serious potential candidates know that sometimes, the primary electorate needs to be saved from itself.

Do you agree with him that it doesn't create jobs?

It would be worse if he tried to justify it.

He has come face to face with the reality in this nation. Politicians and elected people do not run this nation, maybe they never did, but they do not now beyond doubt.

after his last bullshit about giving the rich a tax break and changed his mind!

Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth.

It all just depends on the meaning of the words 'reform' and 'simplify'.

Republicans always act like taxes would be simpler if there were fewer tax brackets. As if it is complicated for people to read a table that shows one bracket or 1,000 brackets. It's simpler for the people making the table, but not for the ones reading it. And my idea for 'reform' would mean 'make it more progressive' as in the ideas I suggested here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

it seems to mean that the working & middle classes are about to get screwed again.

Remember welfare "reform":scared:

You are correct, it is since Clinton was president.

Trying to remember..

The question is, "what is that code for?"

Either whole heartedly screw us or stick to democratic principles. double talk sucks.