Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think he meant that as far as the political middle of the country perceives him, this deal moves him toward the center, similar to how signing welfare reform moved Clinton in that direction.

Oh sure, I think I agree with that as well. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't take this one event and use it to predict the future, because I believe the perception of Obama as a "centrist" will have a lot more to do with how he deals with the new Congress, rather than this 2 year band aid he just signed.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think he meant that as far as the political middle of the country perceives him, this deal moves him toward the center, similar to how signing welfare reform moved Clinton in that direction.

Kepler - while the old guard GOP voters certainly want tax cuts and only tax cuts, we are now dealing with a situation involving the TP voters who were carping on fiscal responsibility. If it turns out those voters were serious about it, GOP lawmakers voting for this nearly $1T tax cut extension + wasteful spending bill will have a lot to answer for in their primaries/re-election bids (provided they don't start aggressively trying to cut federal spending next year when the new Congress convenes).

They only really want to cut non-military discretionary spending. Which will get them effectively nowhere. It's all a big joke.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

They only really want to cut non-military discretionary spending. Which will get them effectively nowhere. It's all a big joke.

I'm talking about the voting bloc not the handful of idiots/liars in Congress who think we can solve the deficit and debt problem with discretionary cuts alone.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't take this one event and use it to predict the future, because I believe the perception of Obama as a "centrist" will have a lot more to do with how he deals with the new Congress, rather than this 2 year band aid he just signed.

I'd certainly agree with that - how the inevitable budget battle with the GOP is handled will say a heck of a lot about whether this compromise was just a blip or if he's really making a concerted attempt to reclaim the independents.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler - while the old guard GOP voters certainly want tax cuts and only tax cuts, we are now dealing with a situation involving the TP voters who were carping on fiscal responsibility. If it turns out those voters were serious about it, GOP lawmakers voting for this nearly $1T tax cut extension + wasteful spending bill will have a lot to answer for in their primaries/re-election bids (provided they don't start aggressively trying to cut federal spending next year when the new Congress convenes).

As I opined before I think most of the TP will be gradually sucked into / co-opted by the GOP, leaving a rump of libertarians serious about fiscal reform and with nowhere to go. The TP will soon discover the GOP only wants to play their reindeer games when it benefits large GOP contributers. The RNC will play the social issues LOUD, hoping to drown out the dissonance between a grassroots movement of lower-middle and middle class people and a national party run by an elite cadre of corporate board members. Theoretically I suppose the TP could break down the doors of the GOP, swamping the old Orange County Reaganites by sheer force of numbers, but I think the GOP is China -- they always absorb their attackers and conquer their conquerors. Privilege cannot really be kept down for long -- it has too many tools to bargain and bribe with.

In 2 or 3 years, the "official" TP -- the TP of Beck and Palin -- will look like the final line of Animal Farm. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think he meant that as far as the political middle of the country perceives him, this deal moves him toward the center, similar to how signing welfare reform moved Clinton in that direction.

Kepler - while the old guard GOP voters certainly want tax cuts and only tax cuts, we are now dealing with a situation involving the TP voters who were carping on fiscal responsibility. If it turns out those voters were serious about it, GOP lawmakers voting for this nearly $1T tax cut extension + wasteful spending bill will have a lot to answer for in their primaries/re-election bids (provided they don't start aggressively trying to cut federal spending next year when the new Congress convenes).

I'd like to know what % of the > $250k group are hardline GOP. There are a lot of blue lawyers and doctors out there, we know the entertainment industry has a lot of very liberal folks in both management and the profession. Sports provides a lot of folks in the > $250k group as well...not sure where they stand, besides Curt Schilling. Financial folks are red although I wouldn't assume that makes them hardline GOP on religious and other issues. Small business owners are closer to the middle class and wouldn't surprise me if they are spread across parties. The majority of the $250k segment are going to lean right but I also suspect there is no shortage of Independents in that group as well.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But Obama is a problem in that regard. He folded on the tax structure -- the most obvious, glaring error of the Bush years other than their Neocon bltizkrieg-for-dummies. He folded on privacy. So who says he won't fold on the wars, too?

No matter how frustrated the left is with Obama, I don't see them abandoning him in '12, especially if the GOP nominates a lightning rod like Palin to go against him. I can only imagine the fear campaign that would be levied against her to turn out the votes (she'll turn us into a theocracy, we'll all be forced to display manger scenes, etc).

I think your analysis overlooks something of critical importance: the economy. If unemployment drops back below 8%, and people are better off than they are now, I expect we'll see a situation very similar to '96 with an easy re-election for Obama and the GOP at least holding serve in Congress (I think more Dems are up for re-election in the Senate the next go-round, so that's something to keep in mind - not to mention the census and how GOP control of state governments will influence the district boundaries).

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'd like to know what % of the > $250k group are hardline GOP.

Best data I can find is this: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=114
Upper quintile: 38-27 GOP (all of this is as of 2005)
2nd highest quintile: 36-31 GOP
middle quintile: 33-32 Dem
2nd lowest quintile: 35-28 Dem
Lowest quintile: 42-20 Dem

However, and this is important - income is not the primary driver of party affiliation. Race is at the top, followed by church attendance, and gender. Income and union membership are tied for 4th with education bringing up the rear.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

(she'll turn us into a theocracy.

Is it fearmongering if it's true?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, well, let's get that discretionary spending cut. Meanwhile the rest of the budget will bankrupt the country while the infrastructure goes to hell like it has been.

The good news is profits are up. Way up. All time highs from what I hear. That's good money to invest overseas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, well, let's get that discretionary spending cut. Meanwhile the rest of the budget will bankrupt the country while the infrastructure goes to hell like it has been.

The good news is profits are up. Way up. All time highs from what I hear. That's good money to invest overseas.

Public risk, private gain. Business as usual.

People may eventually figure it out, but I doubt it when every commercial conservative media source is screaming "Filthy Mexican Muslins!" and every commercial "liberal" media source is screaming, "No! Look Over Here! Beatles on iTunes!"

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But Obama is a problem in that regard. He folded on the tax structure -- the most obvious, glaring error of the Bush years other than their Neocon bltizkrieg-for-dummies. He folded on privacy. So who says he won't fold on the wars, too?

That's the biggest problem with Obama. He should have framed it to the Republicans in terms of choosing war or taxes. We can't continue to make war and still not ask our entire populace to dig a bit deeper and pay for it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's the biggest problem with Obama. He should have framed it to the Republicans in terms of choosing war or taxes. We can't continue to make war and still not ask our entire populace to dig a bit deeper and pay for it.

That wouldn't work. The Tea Party protests would have been larger and louder than they were during the Obamacare legislation. We have a majority of folks in this country that want to eat cake. We have an extremely large generation in this country that doesn't want to go out before they take the country down with them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That wouldn't work. The Tea Party protests would have been larger and louder than they were during the Obamacare legislation. We have a majority of folks in this country that want to eat cake. We have an extremely large generation in this country that doesn't want to go out before they take the country down with them.

I actually think the average "man on the street" TPer is not that hypocritical. If you strip away the 10% of them who are "Obama is Hitler or a Socialist, I Forget Which But I'm Outraged!" morons, and if you strip away the 10% Christianothugs who want to kill gays for Christ, and if you strip away the 10% who react to Palin the way middle school girls react to Justin Bieber (I realize Beiber has far more substantial intellectual and character strength, but bear with me), the rest of the TPers who are out there are actively interested in real fiscal responsibility. Like all non-libertarian conservatives they have a great deal of trouble unwrapping the military from the flag long enough to question the wisdom of maintaining 50% of the world's military budget, but if you put it to them straight, "war or deficit reduction," I think most of them would be consistent with their rhetoric. And that is a serious problem for the folks for whom the wars are good for a vacation home in St. Thomas.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's the biggest problem with Obama. He should have framed it to the Republicans in terms of choosing war or taxes. We can't continue to make war and still not ask our entire populace to dig a bit deeper and pay for it.

While he campaigned on it as a simple issue, getting out of that quagmire isn't going to be a bargaining chip type issue. The complexity and collateral damage of getting us out of there in a time frame any of us would call 'quick' is going to be more than they can stomach. Unless they were going to make a deal like "I'll gladly reduce military spending in 2016 for a hamburger today".

I think this comes back to bite the admin because they made it sound like Bush was playing with toy soldiers and they would 'fix it' right away. The Stop the War bumper stickers were effective but misguided...but putting Gradually draw down our risk and expense levels as we identify the means to leave the countries capable of governing themselves while avoiding ethnic cleansing, extremist takeovers and rampant corruption on a bumper sticker would require a car the size of a KFC franchise (the big ones, not the combo KFC/Taco Bell kind)

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

...the rest of the TPers who are out there are actively interested in real fiscal responsibility. Like all non-libertarian conservatives they have a great deal of trouble unwrapping the military from the flag long enough to question the wisdom of maintaining 50% of the world's military budget, but if you put it to them straight, "war or deficit reduction," I think most of them would be consistent with their rhetoric.

Still don't know about that. It appears to me that the TPers are very similar to standard conservative voters. Here's a link to a poll about their views:

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/poll-of-tea-party-supporters-reveals-surprises/

Quotes:

As other recent polls have shown, tea partiers tend to be white, male, married and older than 45 and consider themselves "very conservative."

While big government is a favorite tea party target, several bloggers were surprised by the results of the poll question about whether the benefits of government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers. Sixty-two percent of tea party supporters said yes.

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

"That's a conundrum, isn't it?" asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. "I don't know what to say. Maybe I don't want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security." She added, "I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

While he campaigned on it as a simple issue, getting out of that quagmire isn't going to be a bargaining chip type issue. The complexity and collateral damage of getting us out of there in a time frame any of us would call 'quick' is going to be more than they can stomach. Unless they were going to make a deal like "I'll gladly reduce military spending in 2016 for a hamburger today".

Not getting out is a matter of choice. We chose to double down in Afghanistan for some unknown reason. I'm sure it's doing as much good as EVERY other occupation of the area throughout the last 2000 years has done. Iran already will have more influence in Iraq than before we entered whether we stay another month or another three years. They are waiting for us to withdraw.

It's real simple, today's wars should have been paid for by people today. Not our kids and their kids.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not getting out is a matter of choice. We chose to double down in Afghanistan for some unknown reason. I'm sure it's doing as much good as EVERY other occupation of the area throughout the last 2000 years has done. Iran already will have more influence in Iraq than before we entered whether we stay another month or another three years. They are waiting for us to withdraw.

It's real simple, today's wars should have been paid for by people today. Not our kids and their kids.

I hear you...it is just that I think Obama knows the reason we did what we did. We can all joke about military intelligence and the foray into Iraq demonstrates that politics can unduly influence decisions but I assume somebody with some knowledge explained something about what was going to happen if we didn't double down. Secrets are hard to keep but I don't know if there would be any political reason to share the worst case scenarios with the public...my guess is that both military, intelligence and regional political experts have painted a picture that a premature departure will be worse than staying. Like the guy or not, I'm confident he wouldn't put our troops in harm's way for the same reasons W did...so, I suspect the picture was bleak if we stayed and more bleak if we left. Also, his VP has a lot of experience in the subject and probably has given BO the benefit of decades of experience in matters such as this...I think he would choose 'get out' if he could, I'm of the opinion that once he got the full download his perspective on getting out and how easy it would be changed dramatically. It is easy to say 100% of the reason for being there was W's small brain and big ego but I suspect it was far more complicated than that both before and after we went in...so getting out won't be as easy as we all would hope. Who knows, maybe BO got some insight into just how worried we should be if AQ gets a whole country to play in without the need to change caves every few weeks.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not getting out is a matter of choice. We chose to double down in Afghanistan for some unknown reason. I'm sure it's doing as much good as EVERY other occupation of the area throughout the last 2000 years has done. Iran already will have more influence in Iraq than before we entered whether we stay another month or another three years. They are waiting for us to withdraw.

It's real simple, today's wars should have been paid for by people today. Not our kids and their kids.

The me (boomer) generation has absolutely NO interest in paying for anything before they go out. My generation would love to pay as we go but it's hard when you're already burdened with your parents bills.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

. My generation would love to pay as we go .

Thats a load of crap, funny the same people keep getting elected year in and year out

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Thats a load of crap, funny the same people keep getting elected year in and year out

Yeah, and I sure voted for 'em. But, fine, then no American's want to pay their bill. Dumbest move I ever made is staying here and not moving somewhere else long ago.