Obama is a very bright man.

[Jackpine Radical]

One cannot presume that his actions arise from a crippled view of reality or a failure to understand their consequences.

For example, he is often criticized for giving away his chips before the game starts, or starting the negotiations from the position where he wants to end up.

In fact, I believe that he starts the negotiations from where the observer maybe wants to end up, but he starts at the right point to get to where he wants to end up.

This suggests to me that his goals are not the same as those of many of his rank-and-file supporters. Obama got the health care plan he wanted. He got the stimulus package he wanted. He provided just as much relief to distressed common people as he wanted to. He will get the tax bill that he wants. He will get the cuts to SS that he wants.

[LiberalLoner]

1. K&R you are spot on. n/t

[snappyturtle]

2. That's depressing. nt

[prodigals0n]

5. The kind of depressing like being diagnosed with a fatal disorder. nt

[snappyturtle]

23. Yes! I hadn't thought of it that way. Welcome to DU! nt

[prodigals0n]

46. Thanks for the welcome. Glad to be here. nt

[tomp]

58. but true. nt

[ProSense]

3. "He will get the cuts to SS that he wants."

Do you have a statement from the President that he wants to cut Social Security?

"Obama got the health care plan he wanted."

Completely agree, and he started from the position he campaigned on, not the position people wished he has campaigned on.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Obama campaigned on no public option?

One of us is sorely misinformed.

As to Social Security - he appointed a commission designed to attack Social Security (both co-chairs are pledged to slash it and have tried in the past), and Obama refuses to oppose slashing it yet has loudly proclaimed that he will fight (against his own commission!!!) on privatization.

[ProSense]

11. "he started from the position he campaigned on"

You can reconcile that with your interpretation.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Don't read these facts

It will make you sad

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/22/obama-i-didnt-campaign-on-public-option/

[ProSense]

22. From a link in that piece

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” (6/15/09)

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” (7/17/09)

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” (7/20/09)

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this (health care bill),” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” (9/20/09)

Like I said, he started from the point he campaigned on.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. From your post

"Obama got the health care plan he wanted."

Completely agree

[Erose999]

80. He sure as hell didn't campaign on the mandate. Whether or not he's "smarter than us here at DU" ...

he's certainly a devious cretin.

[KoKo]

13. Putting Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson in charge is all you need to know

about what Obama wants to do with SS. It's in their plan. Even though there wasn't a consensus of the panel, wait and see what happens when the New Congress comes in. The pieces of the "Deficit Commission" will be sneaked into bills that will be rammed through into legislation.

Obama has only said he would "fight against privatizing 'your' Social Security." You don't need to "Privatize SS" to make cuts in it. Privatize was the bar he set. "Adjustments" in SS are what the Dems will say they had to when the cuts are made that please Repugs and Grover Norquist.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Obama already implemented one of the Commission's recommendations

To freeze federal salaries.

The rest will come.

[ProSense]

20. No,

I need to know when he said he wants to cut Social Security. Until he states that, there is no basis for the claim.

[demwing]

25. When did he say he would protect from cuts in Social Security?

Did he say that?

Show me where he says that he wouldn't cut SSN?

[ProSense]

33. The President's position:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

link

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

Bernie Sanders heard the President:

<...>

“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

<...>

President Obama has said nothing about cutting Social Security.

[KoKo]

38. ProSense...right there in your Snip...you destroy your argument...

Obama is promoting "adjustments" and that's just Think Tank Speak for what will really be cuts. The example Obama cleverly gave was raising the Payroll tax ...but then look further down in your snip and this is what he says:

"So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)"


Obama cleverly leaves it to "one example" but says "that's not the only way of fixing it." Now if he thinks it isn't broken then what are these fixes?

Read the deficit report and note that there are other "fixes and adjustments" that will in fact be cuts in the program as it now stands. The reimbursement for Doctors is one and the push to monitor the "overuse of care" is another. It's all in clever "Think Tank Speak" but the "adjustments" will be changes that will start us down the road to what Grover Norquist was carrying on about on C-Span this a.m. Grover said the push will be to rescind "Obama Care" and that Social Security is a program that needs to be eliminated so that people can make their own decisions about what they do with their money."

The compromises that the RW Repugs and DLC DEMS will agree on will be short of what Grover wants...but will be what they both will say they did to "Save SS" from what the evil Repugs forced them to do. IOWD's...compromise SS away bit by bit so that we invest more of our money into Wall Street so that we can save for our health care and retirement on our own without these "Big Government Programs."

[ProSense]

42. Oh brother

Bernie Sanders heard the President:

<...>

“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

<...>

Koko, oh no, Bernie Sanders is "promoting" Obama's "'adjustments' and that's just Think Tank Speak for what will really be cuts!!!

Oh brother.

[KoKo]

44. Bernie is talking about the exact example Obama gave...raising the payroll tax..

Bernie doesn't talk about other "fixes and adjustments" that Obama gives in the snip of the transcript that YOU JUST GAVE of what Obama actually said about SS.

[ProSense]

47. Question

"With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax."


"So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine."

Those are the two mentions of the word adjustment(s). What adjustment is he talking about?

I realize that in order to perpetuate the belief that the President wants to cut Social Security, one has to claim that his actual words are code for something else.

[KoKo]

51. You didn't bother to read my reply above to you. You are circuitously arguing..

in each post and perhaps you aren't able to understand nuance in Talking Points.

[ProSense]

55. You didn't answer the question.

I read your response, which is why I asked the question. Care to respond:

"With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax."


"So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine."

Those are the two mentions of the word adjustment(s). What adjustment is he talking about?

[KoKo]

63. You are now going on my "Ignore List"...sad I have to do this..

Circuitous Arguing is NOT PRODUCTIVE for DU..or ANYWHERE.

[Winterblues]

76. There are basically only two ways to make such adjustments

Raise revenues and cut expenses.. That is pretty much the bottom line. He gave one example of raising revenues, but said there were more than one type of adjustments to be made.. Common sense would dictate the other adjustments must be cuts or else he would have bragged about how he could increase revenues more..

[laughingliberal]

60. He has said he opposes privatization. Until he says he opposes cuts, I'm assuming he favors them.

He appointed two known haters of SS to head the commission. He won't say he opposes cuts.

If I'm wrong, I'll say so. But I don't think I am.

[Dr.Phool]

64. He was quick to say he wouldn't privatize it.

Hasn't said one word about not cutting it.

But, two years (so far) without an increase based on baloney CPI numbers is the same as a cut.

[laughingliberal]

65. Yep. nt

[vssmith]

41. Social Security does not need to be cut

Since 1937 Social Security has collected a substantial surplus.


As of 2009 the SSA has collected $2,540,348,000,000 more than it has paid out.
In 2009 it collected $807,490,000,000 and paid out $685,801,000,000

The info can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
(Please note that the dollars expressed in this table are in millions)

[demwing]

21. Wow, just wow. So technically correct, so fundamentally wrong.

If you mean that Obama never campaigned for a public option, you are technically correct. By "technically" I mean that during his campaign to win the Presidential election, he didn't promise a public option.

But he did promise "no mandates," and we got mandates. So how can you say he started from the position that he campaigned on? Better yet, how can you say he got the HCR he wanted, unless you admit that he wanted mandates, but ran a campaign contrary to what he ultimately wanted?

That means, according to you, that Obama is a damned liar.

Let's circle back to the public option for a moment. While Obama may not have run this as a campaign point, he did promise that he would fight for regular people and take on special interests. He promised change you can believe in.

And the "regular people" OVERWHELMINGLY wanted a public option - we just didn't like the naming convention. Take the same principles embodied by a public option, and call it "Medicaid For All" or some other name, and about 65% of the people loved the idea.

But the principle got tossed nearly immediately, and instead of fighting for the regular people, Obama fought for the special interests - exactly the opposite of what he promised us during the campaign.

So did he forget his promises, or where those promises lies? Did Obama get the HCR package he wanted, or did he fight for the regular people?

Finally, what good comes from finding a quote from Obama, when he either forgets what he said, or just lied about it from the beginning?

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Sorry, Candidate Obama absolutely did promise a public option

And he immediately abandoned it in a back-room deal, while continuing to disingenuously state that it wasn't dead.

[demwing]

32. Well even worse then, but I can't find that promise - care to share?

Doesn't change my point, it just underscores it.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Sure

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/22/obama-i-didnt-campaign-on-public-option/

There's a campaign ad also - don't have the time to find the video right now...

[somone]

37. It was well known - the RW even compiled it for YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

[KoKo]

39. No matter how many times the video's of his speeches and transcripts of them are linked on DU

it seems people don't read it or they just don't want to know what he said and are in denial.

I've seen you post them before Manny...and others have also.

[demwing]

57. You've misread my point

If he ran on it, he ran on it. Shame on him.

But even if he didn't EXPLICITLY run on it, he did so IMPLICITLY.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

36. Does any of that, including this

"As far as his Health INSURANCE plan -- he campaigned on a health INSURANCE plan? Really? And he campaigned on NO SINGLE PAYER? Wow...I never saw that one. Maybe you could provide a link."

make sense?

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Actions sometimes speak louder than words.

I'm still looking forward to my crow dinner.

[lunatica]

4. If it looks, quacks and walks like a duck

It's not a dove.

We were right to worry when he surrounded himself with the DLC people within days after his election. This just breaks my heart.

[prodigals0n]

73. A center-rigtht Democrat is a republican.

republicans are coo coo as cocopuffs and it's working because Democrats like Barack Obama have allowed themselves to be sucked into the vacuum created in the political spectrum by the republicans' drop off the psychological and political cliff. Democrats like Barack Obama and the DLC think we have a center-right country when center-right is now the place where far-right used to exist.

The professional left is where the center used to be. That's how f'ed up and skewed our political spectrum has become and, along with lingering policies and tax cuts from the dark ages of Bush, why our economy and "freedoms" are skewed and screwed as well. And the republicans have succeeded in winning the media war. Most Americans listen to and believe FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, etc. How do you reason with people like that?

[MannyGoldstein]

7. +6.02e23. The guy was smart enough to be elected as the first black president

Then he hired the DLC to run the country - he had to know exactly where this would lead. More attacks against working Americans, pushing Republicans further right, and losing Congress.

[ProSense]

9. Why do you keep highlighting his race in relation to him being elected? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Because I'm a racist? Is that what you think?

Are you really thinking that Obama's race was not an obstacle in getting elected? Really?

[ProSense]

15. No, I'm asking. What does being black have to do with winning the election?

[MannyGoldstein]

17. I just told you

Being an obvious minority is a serious hindrance to being elected - not (apparently) in places like my own commonwealth of Mass, but in much of the country. The fact the Obama could overcome this is very, very impressive.

[ElboRuum]

61. +Avogadro's Number?

So +1 mole, then?

[jaxx]

8. He's the one fighting for unemployment extensions right now too.

While some say let them do without and have no solutions for those 2 million+ families who will go down hard.

Which suggests to me that his goals are to protect the people. Same as always.

[tomp]

59. he's doing that to protect tax cuts for the rich.

bones and crumbs. period.

[bigtree]

10. the simplest explanation is usually the best

. . .which, in this recent case of the taxes would be that, as you look at the political balance of interests and motivations in the Senate, it's just not a secret at all how individual Senators are going to react and vote. It's no accident that the tax debate was pushed back until it was clear what the next Congress was going to look like. Senators have known for a long time just what it was going to take to keep the middle-class portion of the Bush tax cuts alive. Where was the mystery?

Similarly, the President got no more than the conservative wing of the Senate Democrats would allow on the health care bill. In fact, that's actually the parameter for his political successes; whatever the conservative wing of his own party would allow.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Magical thinking

[somone]

18. There is a method to the madness

unless there is just madness.

Obama has a high intellectual IQ, but it's evident he is not qualified to lead Democrats.

[MindandSoul]

24. I agree. I have also wondered if he doesn't do that in order to

rally the OUTRAGE of the troops. . . .to get the adrenaline flowing in his lukewarm base.

It seems that we only really wake up when there is something BIG going on, when we get mad. . .at Obama! Then we start talking, we start posting, we start making noise that the media has to recognize (well, at least MOST media. . .Faux News is still in denial!).

At least he got us to call our Congressman, to express what it is we really want. . .didn't happen before the elections!

So. . . maybe he just found a way to get us to be more "in your face," a little like the Republicans have managed to mobilize a base of angry teabaggers to be the "squeeky wheel!"

Now, if we could only find a way to get the part of the Republican base (51%, I believe) who do not agree with the continued tax cut for the rich to EXPRESS it loudly. . .we might be getting some place!

[demwing]

27. If that were true, fuck'em

I want a President that leads through courage, not pushes his people in front of him to give him enough political cover so he can follow along.

What are we, his human shields?

[MindandSoul]

30. I can see your point. However, one of the reasons we elected him

is that we wanted him to listen to us. . .we didn't want a dictator, we didn't want someone who made the decisions unilaterally!

So, although I agree that Obama should display more strength, and should move further to the Left in his actions, he does need our full support to move ANYTHING!

And if we had better dems Senators, instead of a handfull of "fake" Democrats in the senate, it would certainly have made his job more straight forward!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DailyGrind51]

28. He is bright, but prefers compromise over confrontation, even at the expense of core beliefs.

[Schema Thing]

35. Yes, Obama is the new Rove. If he desires it, it happens.

Chuck Norris is only alive because Obama has never had the passing thought "I wish he'd just stop breathing".

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

48. I believe there are some arguments against that assumption.

[ProSense]

49. One of them certainly isn't

"we were duped"

[VMI Dem]

50. I agree. He is who he was.

[GeorgeGist]

52. I hope your title is sarcastic ...

[savalez]

53. I think you're right on this.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

54. K&R

[frustrated_lefty]

56. Intelligence is neither wisdom nor common sense.

It isn't so much the president's intelligence which is in question as it is these other traits, or even his actual loyalties.

[Exilednight]

68. I doubt anyone questions whether or not he's intelligent. But he's not an intellectual. n/t

[Laelth]

62. Sadly, I agree. He's not a wimp. His goals merely differ from mine. n/t

-Laelth

[mimitabby]

66. I don't think ANYONE got the heath care plan they wanted

[Exilednight]

69. To get what you want, sometimes you have to fight for it. n/t

[demwing]

70. Well, is that an accomplishment?

Is that what Obama is planning to hang his hat on?

[me b zola]

67. K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

71. The probable truth of your post is making me physically ill.

[bobburgster]

72. Lot of presuming....

and it may be the case, but I'm not ready to assume that much.

[Time for change]

74. I agree with all that

But the main question to my mind is WHY he is so far to the right of us. He is not only far to the right of us, but he is far to the right of who he said he was and what he promised during his campaign. Some possibilities:

1. That's just who is he. He campaigned far to the left of how he's acted as president because that's what he felt he had to do to get elected.

2. He's been bought out. He believes that without the support of Wall Street (who gave him more money during his campaign than any other candidate) he is unlikely to be elected. He believes (probably with good reason) that if he governs to the left of what he is currently doing he will not only lose their support, but they will turn against him.

3. His life and/or that of his family has been threatened.

4. Stockholm syndrome

I can't think of any other possibilities. I'm at a loss to know which one to choose. It could be any of them, but I'm leaning towards # 2 at this point.

In any event, regardless of which reason applies, there is a good reason why many people are thoroughly confused by his actions: He has been thorougly dishonest with us, and he's as good an actor as Ronald Reagan. Of course, if reason # 3 is the correct one, then at least he has an excuse for being dishonest. But even so, we need a different president. Feingold's # 1 reason for not running no longer applies. I hate to wish this on him (Feingold) because I like him, but I hope he runs in 2012.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. Sad, but true.

Which scares the crap out of me. :( I think it has become indisputable that he is not on our side.

[Catherina]

77. Totally correct. Too late to recommend. n/t

[ddeclue]

78. If true it is all the more reason to primary him.

[shanti]

79. without a doubt, he is brilliant

which makes his decisions that much more troubling....:(