Now that Republicans have won in November*

Jolly Bill wrote:

Inflation can be a good thing for the middle class. But that depends on fiscal policy that actually allows for the possibility of inflation. Unbalanced budgets without inflation only leads to default... and collapse that hurts everyone. Like a couple years ago. In that case the rich will probably be better off, but hard to tell.

I think you are conflating Federal Government with Households.

Unbalanced Budgets for Households and Firms leads to defaults.
Unbalanced Budgets for Federal Government leads to a possibility of inflation. The Federal Government cannot default. Since it cannot default, it did not default a couple years ago either. It was households and firms that defaulted.

Funkenpants wrote:

Link. He's been offering compromises all along, but he thinks his problem is that he didn't compromise enough? Crazy stuff.

No, I don't believe that's what he thinks. It's a subtle, but important distinction here: I believe what he's talking about is a failure to build a shared sense of purpose between Republicans and Democrats. Now, I think he's being rhetorical here in not blaming Republican obstructionism: he knows it's not his fault, but like the head coach when it's the fault of the players, you've still got to take responsibility in the press.

If you read to the end of that article, I think there are two very telling quotes:

“They are not going to want to just obstruct, that they’re going to want to engage constructively,” he said of his Republican adversaries. “And then we’re going to have a whole bunch of time next year for some serious philosophical debates.”

I think when Republicans go to Hell, there is a special circle reserved for the most wicked where they must endlessly debate philosophy with someone like Obama--I'm sure this is not a statement to be taken at face value.

Among the things he neglected, he told reporters on Sunday: “Making sure that the policy decisions that I made were fully debated with the American people and that I was getting out of Washington and spending more time shaping public opinion and being in a conversation with the American people about why I was making the choices I was making.”

I think what he's acknowledging here is that he failed to stop the Republicans from controlling the political debate.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think when Republicans go to Hell, there is a special circle reserved for the most wicked where they must endlessly debate philosophy with someone like Obama--I'm sure this is not a statement to be taken at face value.

In the meantime, we all have to deal with his failure to debate politics with them. Presidents aren't college professors, and politics is not the place for subtlety. Besides, anyone who thinks that's it's a failure to build a shared sense of purpose with republicans is not dealing with reality.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think when Republicans go to Hell, there is a special circle reserved for the most wicked where they must endlessly debate philosophy with someone like Obama--I'm sure this is not a statement to be taken at face value.

In the meantime, we all have to deal with his failure to debate politics with them. Presidents aren't college professors, and politics is not the place for subtlety. Besides, anyone who thinks that's it's a failure to build a shared sense of purpose with republicans is not dealing with reality.

Exactly, and now I think we're getting closer to identifying his real failures: it's not that he's a corporatist or weak-willed or anything like that; I mean, I assume most of us here that had hopes for Obama are not black, and let's face it: the first black president hasn't exactly done a whole lot for African-Americans, but I don't think it's time for Kanye to let us know that Obama don't care about black people, so let's keep our judgments similarly cautious.

What we're getting closer to is seeing that Obama wanted to transform political culture for us the way we've all been asking someone to do for the past decade if not longer--he wanted to be the guy that Jon Stewart was calling for in their Restore Sanity rally. In fact, I think Stewart kinda sums up the schizophrenia on the left: they want to bring down the level of partisanship in politics while at the same time criticizing Obama for being...too bipartisan. Now I think there are ways you can have you cake and eat it too, like recognizing that the Republicans in Congress do not represent the interests of the average republican in America and that trying to work with Congressional Republicans as a way of reaching across the aisle is like stepping on the heads of ten people between you and the guy at the other end of the row who has his back turned to you, but, that's a distinction I just don't see people making.

I think what you're finally starting to grasp is that Obama's failing is his refusal to play the hand that was dealt to him. Had he been elected in the middle of a surplus, he could have maybe accomplished this task that we've all been wishing for since the Republicans began their Rove tactics of 50%+1. However, that's not the situation he got. He got a situation where he needed to fix tangible problems like the country's economy before worrying about the meta-problems like country's political atmosphere.

CheezePavilion wrote:

In fact, I think Stewart kinda sums up the schizophrenia on the left: they want to bring down the level of partisanship in politics while at the same time criticizing Obama for being...too bipartisan.

I don't know any major figure on the left who wants to bring down the level of bipartisanship in politics. They're may be some people like that out there, but bi-partisanship for its own sake is the kind of thing professional beltway pundits like to invoke on cable TV shows for no better reason than it allows them to say something related to politics without favoring one side or the other.

Leftists, like right-wingers, know that much of politics and government necessarily involves convincing the public to support policies that the other side simply does not want. There's nothing wrong with that.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

In fact, I think Stewart kinda sums up the schizophrenia on the left: they want to bring down the level of partisanship in politics while at the same time criticizing Obama for being...too bipartisan.

I don't know any major figure on the left who wants to bring down the level of partisanship in politics.

Well sure, but I'm not really talking about major figures. I'm talking about that general feeling that politics went haywire and we lost the ability to have a rational discussion of political issues.

John Stewart is, unfortunately, carving out his own ideology and taking on the left in the process. Not sure if that's going to work out too well for him either. I suppose if he gets too much flack for it he can go to the "professional left" card as well.

President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia by the end of the year appeared to come undone on Tuesday as the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress.

...Mr. Obama had assured President Dmitri A. Medvedev during a meeting just two days earlier that winning approval of the treaty was his “top priority” in foreign affairs for the lame-duck session.

See, that was Obama's first mistake. What he should have told Medvedev was that he didn't care about whether it passes the senate at all. Then the senate republicans wouldn't have felt it necessary to oppose it.

From the above article
The treaty, which would force both countries to pare back nuclear arsenals and resume mutual inspections that lapsed last year for the first time since the cold war, is the centerpiece of two of Mr. Obama’s signature goals: restoring friendly relations with Russia and putting the world on a path toward eventually eliminating nuclear arms.

Yeah, I can see why you'd want to oppose something as horrible as that. It then goes on to say that John Kyl stated he would likely back the treaty if provisions were made to modernize the nuclear weapons industry in the US. Dems, as usual, went straight to the belly-up pose and agreed to spend 80 billion over the next 10 years on modernizing our nuclear weapons. That got a lukewarm response so then they tacked on another 4 billion over the next 5 years. Kyl then basically says thanks but we just don't have enough time to work this out, and moves to block it.

WTF? Have the Dems learned nothing over the last few years? I've seen this play so many times it's getting old. Pubs promise to vote yes if they get a hundred billion dollars in government money to their interest of choice, Obama shovels the money into the projects and then gets nothing in return. Pubs then blame Obama for increased spending.

Naturally Dems are arguing that blocking this treaty hurts American national security while Pubs argue that if the treaty passed it would hurt our security by keeping us from expanding our nuclear arsenal. This is just hopeless.

Nukes makes the world a better place. Everyone should have nukes. We have the right to bare arms and so should everyone else.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Nukes makes the world a better place. Everyone should have nukes. We have the right to bare arms and so should everyone else.

IMAGE(http://www.huskerzone.com/wp-content/Right_to_Bare_Arms.jpg)

?

The bizarro world we live in:

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms.

So while they're pulling in record profits, American businessmen complain that the Obama administration's policy are anti-business. Up is down. We say goodbye instead of hello. Bizarro!

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama told GOP leaders behind closed doors Tuesday that he had failed to reach across party lines enough during his first two years in office, a senior administration official told CNN. He promised to do a better job of bipartisan outreach in the days ahead, the official added.

IMAGE(http://www.brainygamer.com/.a/6a00e39824440288330120a5dc96d4970b-800wi)

"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

The clash of Republican Economic Ideologies will happen.

It will be the Supply Siders vs the Deficit Hawks.

If the Supply Siders win, we will have anemic growth, but at least we will have growth.

If Deficit Hawks win, we will have another recession. Tip - short stocks.

I think the supply siders might win because Obama will still be president. But who knows.

*House only

It looks like the supply siders have won the battle like I originally posted.

BUT it also looks like the demand siders have something too. Like payroll tax relief and extension of unemployment benefits.

Stupid Democrats are fighting this because they want to be "fiscally responsible."

Letting tax rates stay the same plus some demand side benefits are actually good for the economy. The economy will improve and Obama will be elected president again because of this.

I just wish Obama said two years of payroll tax relief and unemployment extension. One year might not be enough.

I was tempted at many points yesterday to just create a "Democratic Party Capitulation Catch-All". Since they're all a bunch of "surrender monkeys"* anyway you might as well create a single thread for all the times they surrender to the "center".

* Coined by The Simpsons beloved by the right wing press during the run-up to the Iraq War

DSGamer wrote:

I was tempted at many points yesterday to just create a "Democratic Party Capitulation Catch-All". Since they're all a bunch of "surrender monkeys"* anyway you might as well create a single thread for all the times they surrender to the "center".

As one of the bloggers I read pointed out, next year the republicans will take credit for the tax cuts while arguing that Obama is destroying the country with deficit spending.

I used to think that the best financial situation was having a liberal president and conservative congress. When it was flipped, during the Reagan years, democrats were happy to pass everything Reagan wanted to spend money on, as long as they got their social spending. That led to an insane deficit. Clinton balanced the budget when Republicans failed to fund everything he wanted to do.

I liked a liberal leader as the face for our country, as well as te restraint forced upon him by conservatives.

Apparently, those days are over. Obama gets his extra unemployment, and Republicans get their tax cuts. Just another sign that Republicans have lost all sense of what made them worthwhile in the first place.

I am so angry about this that I can't even make direct statements. Thank god it will be easy for me to immigrate to Taiwan before this country starts circling the drain at full speed.

Two key obstacles emerged Tuesday night to the passage of President Obama's tax cut compromise with the GOP. This time they come from the right: The influential anti-tax group Club for Growth and conservative kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) both came out in opposition to the agreement, threatening the breadth of Republican support for the plan.

This is unexpected. I wonder if DeMint is going to pull one of those deals where he complains about the bill knowing that there's no chance of it not passing.

Apparently this is what passes for compromise these days. Unemployment benefits as a loan, seriously? How do these f*ing people sleep at night. Oh that's right, sandwiched between layers of money from their lucrative government contract work.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Apparently this is what passes for compromise these days. Unemployment benefits as a loan, seriously? How do these f*ing people sleep at night. Oh that's right, sandwiched between layers of money from their lucrative government contract work.

Wait, "unemployment benefits as a loan"? Did I miss something?

What you missed:

the linked article wrote:

DeMint said. "I don't think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it, and without making some modifications such as turning it into a loan at some point."

Perhaps he's talking about "don't keep extending unemployment benefits past when they were guaranteed except as a loan". (As opposed to "let's turn all unemployment insurance programs into loans".)

But either way it makes no goddamned sense.

So we need to pay back something we've already payed into?

You know I appreciate the president's pep speach yesterday but I am waiting to see when he will realize that the republicans in this tug of war stalemate are yanking the rope from Obama when he extends his hand to shake on the deal.

He could also occasionally work a little harder at whipping the public into a frenzy before capitulating. Maybe he assumes regular retail politicking and media blitzing means nothing and that all the real power is in the senate, so he may as well call them up and give them what they want.

Edit: Want to see how much Republicans now view Obama as their beyatch?

WASHINGTON – House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday thwarted Democratic efforts to award $250 checks to Social Security recipients facing a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase. President Barack Obama and Democrats have urged approval of the one-time payment, saying seniors barely getting by on their Social Security checks face undue hardships without the COLA increase.

But most Republicans contended that the nation couldn't afford the estimated $14 billion cost of the payment, and that the COLA freezes in 2010 and 2011 come after seniors received a significant boost in 2009.

Seriously, we can't afford it? How do republicans say that with a straight face after dealing themselves a giant tax cut for the wealthy? And Obama will just let this go, because he ain't got the energy or leet political skillz to fight them.

Like I said, time to start the "Democratic capitulation Catch-All" thread.

So much for the permanent minority party. Obama is a sleeper. Next he will repeal the health care bill!

Greg wrote:

So much for the permanent minority party. Obama is a sleeper. Next he will repeal the health care bill!

Shhhhh!!! If you hears that you want him to he just might do it.

I thought this article was interesting, from the perspective of those members of congress who shan't be returning.

Frankly, I'd like to see Pres Obama channel just a little bit more...

Jules
IMAGE(http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/10/01/04/pulp,fiction,samuel,jackson-f11ce3a6178a6c2dddf6d7e4aad6a16a_m.jpg)

and a little less...

Marcellus Wallace
IMAGE(http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens5473442module41719832photo_1245677003PulpButchBitch.jpg)

You would think Republicans would cut Obama a break after a major deal? But that's not how they roll:

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has some tough words for President Barack Obama -- who this week reached across the aisle to strike a deal with Republicans over extending the Bush-era tax cuts -- calling him "politically immature." How does he figure? "By using rhetoric that calls us 'hostage-takers,' he believes, somehow, that the Left will give him some credit for hating us, or putting us in a bad light. But it just lowers him," Graham told the National Journal Online. "He is whining, and no one likes a whining president. ... There is a lot of disappointment on our side. Quite frankly, this is going to be hard to forget."

Jeebus, can you ever please these people?

Funkenpants wrote:

"He is whining, and no one likes a whining president"

This part has some truth to it, though..