Go vote

[quannum]

http://i56.tinypic.com/2el4ftj.jpg

Is this image accurate?

the source of that image

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/....shtml#1069976

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Figure1-4.gif

[Rhinox]

ok back home so let me start off by saying

WE NEED MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!
IF THIS ELECTION SHOWED US ANYTHING IS THAT AMURICAH WANTS MORE COMPROMISE!!!!

This is what Obama is trying to sell us.

and by compromise I mean totally caving in on some core principals he ran on.

Last time I looked, David Axelrod wasn't the President.

It's needless to say but I'll say it anyway Axelrod is to Obama as what Karl Rove is to Bush. Both are great Tacticians and Niether would put themselves in a position to take the spotlight away from the president especially in a negative way.

lets refresh peoples memories a bit lets take the BG time machine back to August of last year.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26158.html

President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else” — a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

At the same time, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of six senators involved in bipartisan Finance Committee negotiations, all but declared the public option dead in the Senate.

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives, on Fox News Sunday. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

A White House aide said in an e-mailed statement Sunday afternoon that the president is not backing away from the public plan.

"Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."


But taken together, the remarks from Obama, Sebelius and Conrad suggest the White House is preparing supporters for a health care compromise that may well exclude the government option — which could help Obama win enough votes for a sweeping overhaul but touch off a nasty battle inside his own party between liberals and more moderate members who have resisted a bigger government role in health care.

It was only in June that Obama said in a letter to Senate Democrats that “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

A month ago, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that “any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.”

But in the face of hardening opposition to the idea — even inside his own party — Obama appears ready to retrench. Obama and his aides continue to emphasize having some competitor to private insurers, perhaps nonprofit insurance cooperatives, but they are using stronger language to downplay the importance that it be a government plan.

“What's important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And I'm convinced at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those. But that is not the essential element."

The reaction in the liberal blogosphere and beyond was swift and negative Sunday.

Sound Familiar? Same thing happen with the Financial reform bill and the credit card reform. All compromises with no teeth. technically all "wins" for the president but empty gestures when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

Yeah, and now he's walking back what he said because he wasn't speaking for the President - he was speaking out of his ass.

again you didn't read the article because he said he didn't say anything the president or the White house has not said in the past. The white houses response as well as Axelrod's left wiggle room to later on claim they didn't lie.

You're missing the point - you can parse the language all you want, but it's still Axelrod speaking for Axelrod's sake, not the President's policy.

You're naive if you think Campaign advisors don't parse their language before they do interviews. Howard fineman didn't catch him off guard in a bar where this was off the record this was a planned interview.

yeah, the whole idea of a 2 year compromise has been tossed around basically since the day after the election, so this is really nothing new.

Democrats know that they most likely can't get the votes required to extend it only for the lower/middle class, and they'd rather compromise and extend it for everyone than let taxes go up on everyone, because it'll make the president look bad instead of the republicans who blocked it. I think the problem most democrats have is that they're already capitulating before they even try, making democratic leaders look like spineless weiners who can't stand up for themselves. When Republicans are in power they have no problem pushing through any number of bills regardless of democratic opposition, and when they're in the minority they have no problem saying no, filibustering, stalling, defunding, and impeaching. I think most liberals wish that the president and the democrats would finally grow some balls, at least in their last few weeks controlling both houses of congress.

Actually no. the Idea from the beginging was to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich. It's something he campaigned on and prior to last tuesdays election was something he backed.

the Dems really sold it wrong, I mean all we heard was from the republican camp saying "We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone in a recession" instead of the reality of what the tax cuts really meant. A few people said it would cost 700 billion, but no one really pointed out that the Republican plan gives a $375,000 break to someone making the average of 8 million dollars a year.

Tim Kaine and Robert Gibbs should resign. for all the "wins" the president has accomplished no one but his ardent supporters know anything about them. The fact that Obama has given the largest tax cut IN US HISTORY to 95% of the population yet no one knows/believes it is mind boggling.


Guys this is what Administrations do. He did this with the Afghanistan surge numbers(remember that leak?) the public option being dropped and other things. You also got to remember the administrations bomb thrower(Rahm emanuel) is no longer on the payroll and is running for mayor of chicago so someone had to step up and brace the base for whats to come.

Stop drinking the kool-aid

You going to continue to support him? thats cool but don't piss on peoples leg and tell them its raining.

[Atreides]

Actually no. the Idea from the beginging was to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich. It's something he campaigned on and prior to last tuesdays election was something he backed.

That's exactly what I meant by "since the day after the election". If you're going to try and correct me at least make sure we're not arguing the same point

[Rhinox]

yeah, the whole idea of a 2 year compromise has been tossed around basically since the day after the election, so this is really nothing new.

That's exactly what I meant by "since the day after the election". If you're going to try and correct me at least make sure we're not arguing the same point

well at least be more specific. I didn't realize that stuff that happened last week has been cleared to labeled as "nothing new"

[Atreides]

i dont think I need to clarify "since the day after the election" to say something more like "since the day after the election but just for reference for people who already probably knew this I didn't mean the entire election season and the days leading up to the election itself", I assume you were just as well informed so I'm not sure why you wouldn't give me the same courtesy since we weren't even arguing about anything.

[Rhinox]

My whole argument is based on the fact that he is backtracking on some of the core principals he ran on. You pushed back so I assumed you were talking about since his election not the midterms but whatever.

[Atreides]

Oh I agree he is definitely backtracking, although I definitely think you can be disappointed/frustrated at Obama and still realize that at least part of the reason why he's doing so on the Bush tax cuts is because he can't get the votes. Even if that was the only reason I'm sure we'd agree about how lame and pussified it is that he's not trying hard enough.

[Rhinox]

If congress doesn't grow its spine and defy the president on his compromise pledge in this lame duck session you're gonna see a lot more then fustrated supporters. I guarantee you his base will abandon him and he will be a one term president.

I'm way past disappointed/frustrated. I left this president since he failed to close gitmo and continued the bush policy of extraordinary rendition and have prisoners sent to countries to have them tortured.

Wanna know why congress won't touch bush? because doing so will also now shine the light on Obama.

[Atreides]

you mean impeach bush? I am about 99% sure that will happen to Obama if he gets reelected in 2012 btw

and I'm sure that Dems will complain about Obama's compromise but even if they do they'll probably end up going along with it anyway. I mean, even if every democratic senator votes for only extending it on the middle class he's only got 58 votes, do you really think Snowe/Collins are going to go against their own party on tax policy if they won't even vote to repeal DADT? I mean anger is one thing, but if every Dem in congress angrily takes a stand the tax cuts are going to expire on EVERYONE, and no matter how the president tries to spin it he's going to be the one who gets blamed.

[Rhinox]

You need to have control of congress to impeach someone and if you impeach Bush you're gonna have to impeach Obama.


To clarify on Impeachment requirement: This is why when Democrats regained congress in 06 Pelosi right off the bat said Bush Impeachment was off the table much to Rep. Kucinich chagrin.

[Rhinox]

and I'm sure that Democratic members of congress will complain about Obama's compromise but even if they do they'll probably end up going along with it anyway. I mean, even if every democratic senator votes for only extending it on the middle class he's only got 58 votes, do you really think Snowe/Collins are going to go against their own party on tax policy if they won't even vote to repeal DADT? I mean anger is one thing, but if every Dem in congress angrily takes a stand the tax cuts are going to expire on EVERYONE, and no matter how the president tries to spin it he's going to be the one who gets blamed.

You don't need republican support to make this bill come to the floor.

tell me who is gonna look worse. Democrats for letting the tax cuts expire for everyone because of Filibustering Republicans? or Republicans holding 98% of the American people's Tax cuts hostage to give more money to the rich.

Trust me the GOP would blink first and vote for keeping it for the middle class.

Boehner has said as much

[Talint]

tell me who is gonna look worse. Democrats for letting the tax cuts expire for everyone because of Filibustering Republicans? or Republicans holding 98% of the American people's Tax cuts hostage to give more money to the rich.

The democrats, if for no other reason than that they don't fight back.

The republicans will frame (and actually have been framing) the debate as an "tax increase".

[Rhinox]

Fight back? much to my Chigrin this isn't Taiwan where lawmakers throw shoes at each other. You can't stop a filibuster unless you have 60 votes to invoke cloture.



Democrats have nothing to lose now. The GOP wants the White house in 2012 so this kind of PR would be great for them and it would take ammunition away from Obama in '12.

[Atreides]

yep, in 2012 it's absolutely going to be "Obama let taxes go up on the middle class" if they take the gamble and fail. You are definitely overestimating the intelligence of the average voter lol

and btw almost immediately after Boehner made that statement he walked back from it after near universal condemnation from his republican colleagues. Have you seen the republicans in the media lately? They are fully expecting Democrats to come around to the Republican POV right away, not in January.

Like I said I still think it's incredibly lame to cave in right away without putting up a fight but the reality is that Dems really can't get the bill through without compromise.

[Rhinox]

Then why bother running anyone at all then? They should just hand over the presidency to the GOP now then since no matter what they do they would spin it.

From now on replace compromise with the word fail or Failure. because I can guarantee you thats what its going to lead too.

[Rhinox]

and btw almost immediately after Boehner made that statement he walked back from it after near universal condemnation from his republican colleagues. Have you seen the republicans in the media lately? They are fully expecting Democrats to come around to the Republican POV right away, not in January.

Like I said I still think it's incredibly lame to cave in right away without putting up a fight but the reality is that Dems really can't get the bill through without Failure.

Wanna know why he walked it back? give you a hint.

It has something to do with the first Tuesday in November.

[Atreides]

yeah of course, but Republicans are now so energized by the election that they're not going to be the ones to blink, especially if they know they can wash their hands of it and come out on top politically in 2012. Granted that's probably a double edged sword, like I've said Repubs haven't really offered what the people want and are largely overinterpreting the results of the election for their own political gain and that definitely has the potential to bite them in the ass, but only if Democrats are willing to actually play politics for once.

[Rhinox]

One thing you're overlooking. Boehner and McConnell are not Tea partiers. They're establishment Republicans who when it comes down to it are more pragmatic then their tea party counterparts.

[Atreides]

it doesn't really matter, even if the tea party and republican goals were different here (they're not) they don't really have the luxury of pissing the tea party off by compromising their ideals and jeopardizing their own reelections. Still, establishment republicans are just as much in favor of tax cuts on the rich because that's who's paying them oodles of money.

[Rhinox]

Jeopardizing their own elections? are you kidding me? They're both in two of the safest districts in the country for a Republican. These guys aren't Bob Bennett and Mike Castle here.