Obama's Pursuit Of The Grand Bargain Will Fracture The Dems And Give The GOP

[TheMastersNemesis]

power in the longer run to savage the country even more than they have now. Even if the GOP were to take up Obama's proposals the revenue he might agree to would be like pennies. And the deficit will go up.

I do not understand the adamant stance that any part of the safety net should be cut. If Obama was the best we could do, it says a lot about the sad state of the country. While the GOP runs deeper into its crazy base, Obama is trying to destroy the Dems base.

Does anyone understand what the H is really going on here. Things do not add up. Cannot make any sense of it. Even if Obama is a third way Dem, it does not make sense.

[MrSlayer]

1. Obama is all they would allow.

Obviously, a Reaganite that is less of a traditional Democrat than Reagan was, is not the best we can do but it is all the owners of the country would allow. This is as good as it's ever going to get. The owners know that people would never accept a Republican ending the New Deal but a Democrat could, particularly this Democrat.

We need to face it, the country as the baby boomers knew it is over and it's never, ever coming back. This government is bought and owned and the people that own it don't give fuck one about anything except getting more for themselves.

After they have looted this country of every last penny, they are going to leave us to rot. We're already on our way to third world status.

People don't want to hear that there is no hope but the truth is, there isn't any. It's over and the bad guys won. And they were carried to victory by the very people that would suffer most from it.

Anyone denying this is denying reality.

Sorry.

[magellan]

6. +1

What you've described is the bare bones truth of the matter. It's either going to be a relatively slow slide into the abyss with the Dems or face first with the Repubs. And I honestly can't say which is the more humane of the two, because the result is the same.

[KoKo]

33. Death by a Thousand Cuts...or the Axe to the Neck...

The former gives some hope... That's the best I can say about it...

[duffyduff]

12. This country is literally run by and for gangsters.

It's the only apt description of these economic terrorists who are out to destroy the country.

They have infiltrated the Democratic Party to the point it is a hollow shell of what it once was.

"Once was" was as recently as ten years ago.

[kairos12]

2. I fear this Grand Bargain bs is his attempt at legacy building

Nixon goes to China and only a dem could cut Medicare and Social Security.

Makes me want to puke.

[DearHeart]

3. Bingo!

I've been thinking this for a while, ever since the first time a "Grand Bargain" was mentioned. I believe that this is the reason he ran as a Dem, even though he's a self-described, moderate republican; he could never have gotten the White House if he ran as a Republican.

[forestpath]

10. I have been wondering a lot lately if Obama is like a

Trojan horse.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Nah, I see him as highly inexperienced and desperate to get any kind of...

...legislation passed. I see those two things as major players in his choices so far. He wants legislation by the pound. He doesn't care so much what it is or what we have to give up for it.

PB

[okieinpain]

23. lol. maybe he knows something you don't. n/t.

[DearHeart]

22. Exactly! He ran as a Dem, but from what I've seen and read, he has really been

nothing but a Moderate Republican in Dem clothes. I don't want that to be true, however, when you look at the majority of his policies and what he's willing to give up the placate the far-right wing of the "opposition" party, you have to at least be willing to consider that he is not, in fact, what he purports himself to be. (bad grammar? I'm tired today) I don't hate the man, I just believe that he's too interested in his legacy and can't see how badly people will be hurt by his and the republicans actions; can't see the forest for the trees.

[forestpath]

30. If he cares about his legacy...you'd think it wouldn't be one of destroying

the Democratic Party. Unless that is what he intended to do all along.

[Poll_Blind]

13. I agree somewhat with kairos12's comment, but have a slightly different take...

...on the "legacy building".

So let me back up for a second with an analogy. Gibbon wrote that neither the Visigoths nor Vandals nor Franks could destroy Rome. Only the Romans could destroy Rome. The thing about Obama's presidency is that while the Republicans and turncoat Democrats have been major foes to enacting progressive policies, only Obama really had the power to trash himself by making the choices he did. Everyone realizes he's got his arms tied to a large extent with congress. And on both obvious (Republican obstructionism) and more subtle (Ben Nelson-style "Cornhusker kickback" Democrats) counts.

I would agree that he's shooting for the Grand Bargain, in part, to cement a legacy. But the legacy he seems to desperate to cement is the only one both the Republicans and Third-Way Democrats will let him: Which is the legacy of a Republican-lite president.

None of his foes are forcing this one him. He wants something on the mantle so badly that he's still blowing on arrows shot by the Gang of Six in 2011 or much earlier, hoping for them to magically hit the bulls-eye after all this time.

So I disagree with the perception that he's not a Democrat. He is a Democrat, at least on social issues. But the main thing is he's highly inexperienced, surrounded himself with advisers who were hardcore conservative representations of our Party and he wants some kind of legacy so badly, he's willing to sacrifice things he shouldn't to do it.

And it's backfiring on him like a shit landmine.

PB

[DearHeart]

20. I agree somewhat, however, he is a self-described moderate republican

One of his influences is Ronald Reagan, and he made the choice as to who his advisers were. I could be wrong, but he's not having his strings pulled on his choices like the previous President, the Puppet Bush. Obama could have gotten rid of the republican advisors that were still on board when Bush II left and bring in some good PROGRESSIVE advisors, however, he chose to keep the hard care conservative advisors. He also, being the "Bipartisan" President, chose to bring in other republicans in his cabinet and staff; he chose them and didn't clean house, the repercussions are on his shoulders.

I also somewhat agree that on social issues he tends to LEAN left, but putting up Chained CPI on the table and always talking about "entitlement" reforms, leads me (IMHO) to believe that he is not really a Dem on these issues.

He is the President after all and does not have to take anyone's recommendations, and yet he's chosen to put the "Grand Bargain" options on the table, yet again. I agree with you that he's been obstructed all the way, but he could stand firm and say that it doesn't matter how far his poll numbers drop, he will not give in on SS, Medicare, and other social program cuts; that is after all why he was given a second term. His poll numbers dipped by what 4 points and all of the sudden, he's having dinner with the republicans. What was he promising them?

I heard I believe Rep Clyburn on MSNBC this morning talking about a 20 year budget instead of a 10 year budget. He said that they could do that and the cuts would not hurt the way it will with a 10 year timeline. It seems however, that Obama and the republicans are hell bent on 10 years. Why? He wants to look like the only grown-up at the table, wants the public to see that he's willing to cut the hell out our "entitlements" to cut the deficit and satisfy the far-right deficit hawks (Tea Party asshats). SS has nothing to do with the deficit, but I don't see him making that argument to the Republicans or to the public.

He wants his legacy and he wants to be the DEM who got through "entitlement reform" and he's willing to let go off, as you said, a "shit landmine" on the poorest people in the country to achieve his "legacy." How sad is that? I for one expected more from this man, who I voted for; I didn't expect what he's been doing.

[duffyduff]

14. I suppose he still is talking to historians to see if he is going to measure up

Remember the NYT had something to the effect Obama was consulting with historians to find out what made certain presidents "transformative."

The last fucking thing I want in the White House is a narcissist who cares more about image than what is best for the country.

[DearHeart]

25. Wow! Never heard this...I hope this isn't true.

But, unfortunately, that is how it seems; he "cares more about image than what is best for the country." That really saddens me. Guess I've been naive too long because I've always believed that you run as a DEM because you want to help the country and its citizens, not because it will satisfy your own ego or make you look good in the history books; I now know that I was wrong.

[Demo_Chris]

4. It's interesting how the bilionaire owners always get the opposite party to do this stuff

You have Clinton doing NAFTA for them.
Bush gave drug companies Medi D
Obama did ACA for the insurance industry and now he's working to destroy Social Security.

[BuelahWitch]

5. All this BS with Paul Ryan's "budget" is kabuki theater

"Lookie, lookie over here, see, this is how bad it could be!"

[jollyreaper2112]

8. No

It's not kabuki but bukkake.

[cliffordu]

27. I saw what you did there....

[jsr]

7. His obsession with cutting "entitlements" is pathological

[SamReynolds]

16. I haven't been here long...

But I came here because I believe in liberal causes and support a President in a very difficult position who must sometimes do what he might not want to.
Saying that he has a 'pathological' impetus to strip social programs seems absolutely incompatible with the reality. 'Pathological' more closely describes the way Republicans go about stripping protections from people.
You seem to have actual hatred for the President, and seem to be airing it on a site where I might have expected to see more support for him. Why so much venom towards him?

[Fumesucker]

19. It certainly hurts when your enemy stabs you in the back

But it hurts a great deal more when someone you thought was on your side does the stabbing.

[forestpath]

9. There must be some huge pay off in it for him. And I suspect

this is just his opening shot.

[duffyduff]

11. That's the point. n/t

[SamReynolds]

17. Maybe it's possible that Obama is trying to put Republicans in a bad light for next year. If I under

Maybe it's possible that Obama is trying to put Republicans in a bad light for next year. If I understand it, 2014 is an election year?

[Rhiannon12866]

18. Every year is an election year, though not for every office

However, 2014 is a year for numerous races in the House, Senate and Governors:


2014 US House/ US Senate/ Governor.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288352

[DearHeart]

26. The republicans have a 26% approval rating...they don't need his help to look bad, they already do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/republican-party-approval-rating_n_2499934.html

[datasuspect]

21. we had a judicial coup in this country more than a decade ago

it never ended.

[L0oniX]

24. Where is SD, PS and SCD when ya need em?

We don't need no stinking worshippers.

[AndyA]

28. There are still progressive Democrats in Congress against cutting

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They are against chained CPI, or any other type of "adjustment" that would lower payments or increase costs to those who can least afford it.

We have to hope they will stick to their values, and convince President Obama that the wealthy are the ones who have not shared in the sacrifice up to this point, and it is they alone who must sacrifice now for the greater good of all.

We'll have to see how far these progressives in Congress are willing to bend. Hopefully, they will not be as flexible as Obama.

[randome]

29. Get the House under Democratic control and then we'll see what happens.

Until that occurs, nothing will get done. Do you understand that? NOTHING.

Is it better to get SOMETHING done rather than NOTHING? I think that's Obama's thinking. I could be wrong.

[JoePhilly]

31. Obama hates us.

That must be it.

[NCarolinawoman]

32. Another Teddy Roosevelt quote here. Might explain it....

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an INVISIBLE government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging NO RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE."

[ladjf]

34. Mr. President. Just fight and win for the American people. That will take care of your legacy.

[Marr]

35. That's what the Third Way/DLC has always been about--

destroying the more populist element of Democratic Party by moving away from it's traditional constituencies and towards more corporate funding.

Obama has repeatedly gone out of his way to show how "business friendly" he is by excluding (and even insulting) liberal voices and causes. It started with his first appointments just after he was first elected.