I… don’t understand. As Krugmannotes, Obama seems to systemically give up his bargaining position, over and over again. And yet he seems to be able to get things done, sometimes - see healthcare, don’t ask don’t tell, getting Osama bin Laden.
At the same time, I just realised that there aren’t even any tax adjustments in Reid’s new bill on the debt ceiling. WHAT? And that Medicare, and Social Security are on the table. WHAT? I mean, you did just see the bill that the House passed, right?
I don’t get it. I’m conflicted. I don’t understand. Unless he’s running some sort of Lord Foul-esque Xanatos Gambit, WHAT on earth is he DOING?
Obama has always struck me as being a practicalist first and foremost - he has ideals that he believes in deeply, but there’s a divorce between the way he’d like the world to be and what is achieveable, and he’s willing to compromise a lot in order to ensure what might be considered a minimax solution.
No, he seems more concerned with handing the Republicans everything they want in return for repeatedly being spat on by them and for driving the country every further towards fascism and economic collapse..
Wait, you’re blaming him for what’s in Reid’s bill?
Not that he couldn’t get it changed if he wanted to, of course, so there is some blame there, but obviously whatever motives he has is shared by at least the top dude in the Senate, right? Or am I missing something here?
Gah. I think I’ll just ignore the news, and especially the political blogs, for at least the next few months… Heck, until after the election. It’s just easier on the sanity that way.
The tax hikes are necessary, but the Dems would need a super majority in both houses to pass a single tax hike. The Republicans think taxes are made of Satan. They not only won’t compromise and increase revenues, they go chicken little at the mere mention of taxes. They won’t even restore taxes to where they were a few years ago before Bush tanked the economy.
And I’m torn between not voting for him if he hoses us by giving the Republicans exactly what they want, and understanding that nobody stands a snowball’s chance in hell against the idiots currently in Congress.
None of whom, by the way, should be re-elected. - okay, scratch that. I’m keeping Franken, but the rest of 'em can sod off.
If you trade out the Dems with more tea partiers and the tea partiers with more Dems, what will that accomplish? Anti-incumbency got us into this mess. People keep voting for people who hate government and are going to change Washington. They need to elect grown-ups who understand government has a role and are going to go legislate instead of mugging for the cameras. Some such people are already there.
I’m not trading anything. I didn’t vote for the tea party. But if you say it’s them, someone’s bound to point out exactly what you just did. I think this is one of those “no matter what, I’m wrong, so I think I’ll just go eat leftover Chinese.”
Boehner is in the middle of finding out why I’m railing against the tea party.
I was responding to your “throw the bums out,” sentiment. If you like Franklin, you’re probably not also voting for Bachmann, but more widely applied “throw the bums out” has led to the current problem. People don’t need to be anti incumbent. They need to look at what their particular local rep has done to ameliorate or exacerbate things and vote accordingly. One suspects the kind of poorly educated, older white demographics that express their rage* via the tea party will see the intransigence as a victory, though.
*Over what, one wonders, since there was no “tea party” during the drunken sailor spending of Bush, and as has been demonstrated many are actually not paying loads in taxes and are the recipients of government largesse. There’s really nothing there below the din of jingoism that I’ve been able to figure out.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that electorate are probably going to respond to the current problem by voting in even more recalcitrant, combative doorknobs. They’re frustrated by partisanship and division, so they’ll punish the moderates.
I remember reading a news article saying that social security and Medicare were on the table, but the article above was the best I could come up with. Ok, he doesn’t actually have the power to raise any bills, but how do you raise a bill that goes against the president of your party?
