Paul Krugman: ".... voters are starting to write off Obama as a man too timid to take a stand."

[Better Believe It]

Op-Ed Columnist
Let’s Not Make a Deal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
December 5, 2010

Right now, the Republicans see themselves as successful blackmailers, holding a clear upper hand. President Obama, they believe, wouldn’t dare preside over a broad tax increase while the economy is depressed. And they therefore believe that he will give in to their demands.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Last but not least: if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown? (A lot! I believe President Obama will propose massive cuts in government employees, wages, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other social programs when he submits his next federal budget proposals. This deal and his pay freeze on government workers certainly sets the stage for that. BBI)

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Donnachaidh]

1. they think they got shellacked this past election

That's going to seem a sweet kiss in the next election, if what my neighbors are saying.

[CakeGrrl]

57. When rabid Repubs take the WH thanks to reactionaries acting out at the ballot box,

The President and other members of Congress aren't the ones who are REALLY gonna feel a "shellacking". Something tells me they have the financial resources to weather it.

[bc3000]

67. That scenario is pure fantasy

The democrats will be the victims of a base that is disillusioned with politicians who cave to every republican whim, not to reactionaries expressing their displeasure with 3rd party candidates.

Perhaps you should spend more time chastising our weak representatives rather than those who object to their feebleness.

[Donnachaidh]

100. +1000! n/t

[dflprincess]

143. The elect ed Democrats will not be "victims of a disillustioned" base,

rather it is the base who have been their victims.

[mitchtv]

158. thanks bc you said it

some people are still "hoping", rather than learning

[mdmc]

183. 1

[ProudDad]

102. The "Reactionaries" are already in the W.H.

and own the Senate too...

[leeroysphitz]

205. I'm getting pretty tired of ignorant DUers comparing me to a child

just because I have sense enough to want better government.

[lib2DaBone]

2. A primary challenge to Obama.. the last/only hope for Dems...

Kucinich/Grayson/Bernie Sanders

[thereismore]

19. Another possibility is that Obama really does take a stand. Hope dies hard. nt

[texastoast]

54. It is damned time

My tin foil hat is telling me that he's a corporate plant, stamped with approval, and a perfect puppet. Gosh, Harvard educated, "black," a people person's person, but most importantly, doing what he's told.

I really don't want to listen to that voice at all. Hope, indeed, dies hard.

[howmad1]

65. Ya gotta hand it to the rethuglicans:

Convincing Obama to run as a democrat for president was a sheer stroke of genius.

[russspeakeasy]

82. howmad1..you're a genius...

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

184. Manchurian right?

[Xenotime]

60. He could stand up and take charge. That would be great to see.

[verges]

68. Ain't happenin'.

If there were going to be challenger, we should already be seeing indicator's. Has anybody been spending an unusual amount of time in Iowa or New Hampshire? Who's building an infrastructure to support a candidacy. You can't and it wouldn't be a good idea to hide such a thing. It's not going to happen. Unless Obama decides for some reason NOT to run. Then look out! It'll be a free for all!

[creon]

192. true

No one in the party will run against him. There is no one to run against him.

It would be very interesting if Obama decided not to run again. That may be more likely than Obama being challenged.

[NewJeffCT]

73. I'd be shocked if anybody primaried him

Kucinich caved on the public option in the end after all...

[olegramps]

186. What would you expect him to do after Obama sold out.

[martymar64]

79. Brian Schweitzer

[Knight Hawk]

116. Howard Dean

Tough,smart and much more electable.

[liberation]

120. A pripary challenge to a sitting president usually only spells trouble.

A similar scenario happened during the 79 Dem primaries between Kennedy and Carter. And in the end we ended up with Reagan. Even if Obama was not to seek re-election, the precedent is not good either. Since after LBJ decided not to run for the 68 campaign, Nixon ended up winning...

I think progressives need to realize first how utterly fucked the left is in this country, before they can tackle the issues and articulate a successful solution. The left is still in denial since they have deluded themselves into thinking that a center-right administration would enact a liberal agenda by proxy.

The problem is systemic, and the solution is not just a simple "primary challenge."

[Art_from_Ark]

149. You really can't say we lost in '68 because Johnson was challenged

The reason why he was challenged was because the Vietnam War was becoming so damned unpopular. In the primaries, Eugene McCarthy was attracting a lot of support from people who opposed the war. Then Walter Cronkite, the influential anchorman of the CBS Evening News (said to be "the most trusted man in America") came out against the war in his February 27, 1968 broadcast. Johnson, disillusioned at having "lost Cronkite", announced his withdrawal from the primaries shortly after that. In the same month (March 1968), Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy, and was building momentum, which culminated with his June 5, 1968 victory in the California primary. There is every reason to believe that Robert Kennedy would have won the nomination, and in all likelihood would have defeated Richard Nixon in the general election.

But Kennedy was killed on the night of his California victory, and the the nomination was given to Hubert Humphrey, a man who didn't even run in the primaries, while Richard Daley's thugs were beating up on protestors outside the convention hall. Humphrey was the vice president at the time, and was thus viewed as the "establishment candidate". He also did not have anywhere near the appeal that Robert Kennedy had. To complicate matters, George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, was running on the "American Independent Party" ticket as a Dixiecrat. Wallace siphoned off a lot of Southern votes that otherwise would have gone for Kennedy, and Humphrey ended up losing 5 Southern states outright to Wallace, and lost a few more states to Nixon because of Wallace. Nixon ended up squeaking by to win the election.

[mrdmk]

156. Thank-you for debunking the, 'Obama is the best we can have!'

:fistbump:

[Betty Karlson]

174. I wish I could K & R just this one comment.n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

190. Thanks

You know, 1968 has practically become an obsession with me. It was definitely a "best of times, worst of times" year, both for the nation and for me personally.

I still remember that awful June day. In May 1968 at my school, at least in my class, in a small town in Arkansas, there was "Bobby fever". It was amazing how many of the kids were talking about Bobby Kennedy-- and this was elementary school. And then a week after summer vacation started, I went over to a friend's house, quite oblivious to the events of the night before. I found my friend's older sisters all sitting on the sofa, crying their eyes out. "What happened?" I asked. "Bobby Kennedy was shot", they replied. Then I said something stupid like "You mean John?" It never occurred to me that it was possible for a second Kennedy to be shot. But someone turned on the TV, and of course there was nothing but talk of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. It was just so heart-wrenching. Even today, 42 years later, I just completely lose it if you say "Bobby Kennedy-- June 1968". Add the song "Abraham, Martin and John" to the mix, and I become a total wreck. I just can't control my emotions about that day, even 42 years later.

[rhett o rick]

201. Well said. Thanks. nm

[Pacifist Patriot]

206. I so love to see facts introduced into a discussion.

Thank you. Sometimes we do indeed need a history lesson to put things in perspective.

[PVnRT]

210. I'd argue that there was no real "challenge"

Johnson dropped out fairly early in the primary, creating, at that point, an open field. The best comparison would be 1980, when Carter had to actually fend off a primary challenge for the entire primary season, and that turned out very badly, October Surprise notwithstanding.

[Art_from_Ark]

211. On the contrary, there was a challenge

Eugene McCarthy won the New Hampshire primary. Although Johnson was disillusioned about "losing Cronkite", would he have sought the nomination if McCarthy hadn't shown that there was strong support for an anti-war candidate?

At any rate, Johnson's departure did, as you said, create an open field.

[truedelphi]

121. + 1. n/t

[Orsino]

198. Financed by which unlimited secret corporate dollars, exactly? n/t

[PVnRT]

209. Any legitimate primary challenge to Obama will come from the right wing of the party

Frankly, I think it will be Bayh, since he still has millions sitting in an account that he refused to use to help out during the midterms in Indiana.

[treestar]

3. I'm sure the Republicans are grateful to him for his help

This whole courage in the schoolyard meme is to help Republicans, period. Anyone who propagates it helps Republicans. May we well join the Republican party.

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Not so.

It shapes the discourse exactly where liberals need it to be: pushing Obama to stand up to Republicans, for once, and pushing future Democrats to pursue the courage of their convictions.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[somone]

4. People want a president, not some freakin' federal mediator

And we've got the worst federal mediator ever

[treestar]

17. People want unemployment benefits and low taxes

They don't give a shit if the rich get a cut, too.

They do not want ideological stands.

[thereismore]

20. Yes, but people also want a leader. nt

[treestar]

23. People do not care about having a leader to follow

If they live in the US and lke it here, they know it is a government of the people. I don't need a leader. I just want someone to fill the offices of President, Senators, etc., as they are written in the Constitution.

Most people don't even care. But they would notice if their taxes went up. And they don't care about principled stands where theirs go up so the rich do too.

[thereismore]

32. No, people do care. People are stupid. They don't even want democracy. They would

be perfectly happy with a decisive king who thinks for them. Government by the people? Please. They hardly know their 1st and 2nd amendment rights, probably just a caricature of the 2nd!

[ProudDad]

103. "a government of the people"

gee, when the fuck did that break out?

Hasn't been one of those here since 1492...

[RaleighNCDUer]

126. What makes you think they'd notice if their taxes went up?

They sure as shit did NOT notice when they went DOWN.

YOU are the one talking ideology - and it is the other side's ideology you are parroting.

[dotymed]

195. Sadly, all the people seem to do

is parrot whatever they hear on MSM, especially fox tee vee. Just reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would have huge, positive results in America.

[donco6]

128. Wow. Well that explains a lot.

"I don't need a leader. I just want someone to fill the offices of President, Senators, etc., as they are written in the Constitution." -treestar 2010

I see a bumpersticker coming on . . .

Obama 2012 - Because we need SOMEONE in that Office!

[Skittles]

178. don't argue with that one

totally pointless

[tavalon]

165. People are slippery things,

not likely to be so easily pigeonholed by you or by me.

[vssmith]

194. Is there anyone on Mt Rushmore that was weak?

[rhett o rick]

203. You are sooo far out of the loop. nm

[Egnever]

217. Only if the loop consists of malcontents.

[rhett o rick]

218. With empathy like that one might wonder what party you sympathize with. nm

[rhett o rick]

219. I am guessing you would have considered the Founding Fathers, malcontents.

If wanting our democracy back is malcontent, then I am a proud malcontent. I am sick of ten years of watching the repukes destroy our country with the Democrats, at the best, doing nothing, at the least helping the mf'ers.

[rhett o rick]

204. A leader would help Congress get bills passed. nm

[okieinpain]

29. i agree with you, and as much as it would make du happy

for the tax cuts to expire. I don't think president obama would recover if people think he allowed their taxes to go up to make his base happy. I know about the polls, i understand the polls, but the polls had reid down 4 points through the whole general election and he won by what 6 - 7 points. some times the polls don't reflect whats really going on.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. So I see you're not worried about the deficit anymore

That was your excuse for supporting the fed'l wage freeze, remember?

[frylock]

84. nice catch

[Hello_Kitty]

85. Oh believe me, I'm paying attention to this.

The apologist crowd will be reminded of this any time they defend austerity measures because "OMG we need to cut the deficit!!" These tax cuts are going to add 3 trillion to our debt and nearly a trillion of it will be going to the top 2%.

[ProudDad]

104. 4 Trillion...

3 Trillion is just the cost of Iraq...

[Lasher]

175. Few people seem to realize we wouldn't have deficits witout the Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars.

And the Bush recession. This is insane, we're perpetuating all of that.

[Confusious]

51. 52% want the tax cuts for the rich to expire

14% want all the tax cuts to expire.

so 66% want the tax cuts for the rich to expire at least.

So they give a little more then a shit. They want a stand.

[mazzarro]

119. Somehow you forgot to tell tht to the teapublicans!

"They don't give a shit if the rich get a cut, too.
They do not want ideological stands."

So politics without principles is the cornerstone of the New Democrats and the DLCers?

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. Always has been. nt

[LooseWilly]

123. People also want magic ice cream that will make them beautiful and rich, not just low taxes...

and unemployment compensation funding.

If I re-label an ice cream box to promise that, it won't make the ice cream magic.

People want comfortable piles of money to spend on stupid shit... but policy that will cause the government budgets to bleed out and require amputations of major portions of social welfare spending is not going to accomplish this... there's a reason it was called "voodoo economics" when Reagan preached it.

Trying to defend a cowardly capitulation by appealing to the "necessities" of catering to an idiotic public that is demanding their "voodoo ice cream treats" is just plain irresponsible. And trying to insinuate that criticizing policy that is self-defeating in the long term as being a partisan attack, rather than a policy criticism, is partisan party hackery at best, disingenuous by definition, and insidious to national interests as well as party interests.

I hope you are proud of yourself.

[donco6]

129. +50 bajillion and a half.

Sheesh - of all the "defenders of the faith" THAT one . . . just, wow.

[rhett o rick]

134. Who do you think will pay the 0.8 trillion dollars? The middle class that's who.

Obama can kiss his ass goodbye.

[TBF]

185. Which people want that? Your right-wing friends? It is not an "ideological stand" to raise taxes

on billionaires, it is self-defense. They have been robbing us blind for years, and now you want to continue their tax breaks as well?

[bread_and_roses]

188. If the Ds got out there and told "the people" it's THEY who will PAY for the rich cuts

they damn well would care. If the Ds had the honesty and the guts to get out and tell the story they would have the people behind them. If they made plain the vast income inequality, the stagnation of wages, the reality that the unfair burden put on workers while the rich party hearty on their fat gains means no money for schools, roads, infrastructure, conservation, new green jobs, health care, school aid, etc etc etc, yes, they would care.

But THAT would offend their corporate paymasters, so they don't.

[Jefferson23]

207. Americans don't care if the rich get a tax cut too? What ideological

stand are you referring to? Do you recall why Obama wanted the tax cuts for the wealthy to end? Nothing to do with
ideology..it is called fiscal responsibility.

[Renew Deal]

38. Some people want a dictator

but whatever.

[ProSense]

5. Krugman is wrong about me and millions of Americans. As I said in

another thread, he is right that the tax cuts for the rich shouldn't be extended, but he also knows damn well there is going to be a compromise. Democrats are working on one. It's not a secret.

The President wants the middle-class tax cuts expanded, and most Americans agree with him. Very few want all the tax cuts to expire. Krugman doesn't have to worry about the cost of taxes going up for 98 percent of Americans. It's surprising how big a stink people made about a modest freeze, but they're willing to impose more suffering (up to $5,000) on the majority of Americans.

Then there are all the other political realities that Krugman's statement doesn't address, such as extending unemployment. He will be the first to label the President uncaring if this situation drags out. From someone who made the point that people can't expect the President to make Lieberman act less like Lieberman during the health care debate, he has to understand that anything that passes requires compromise. Democrats need Republican votes. If Krugman wants to spell out exactly how Democrats should achieve the President's goals without compromise, he can do so. Simply stating that there should be no compromise is an easy and cheap copout.

They are going to do what they can to secure the middle-class tax cuts and other key programs related to the stimulus and unemployment.

No one knows the details of that deal.

[4dsc]

21. There should be no compromise with rethugs

Fuck compromise and the horse you road in on. You sound like the talking heads on FOX news as they were wondering the same thing. Where's the compromise they shouted as IF, democrats needed them.

[JDPriestly]

22. I agree with Krugman. The Republicans are simply extorting

concessions from a frightened president. Obama's inability to stand and deliver is emboldening them. Even if Obama can't deliver, he still should stand.

Everything you say makes sense if you don't think beyond the next news cycle. But this is about our country. The Republicans have to go back to voters to whom they promised a lower budget deficit. Let the Republicans pass the tax cuts in January. Let the president veto it. Let the government come to a standstill and watch how Republican businessmen react when the government stops serving them.

As for unemployment, rest assured, the Republicans will refuse to extend it beyond a few months. They want to use their ability to extort votes in exchange for bringing the unemployment legislation to the floor in a few months.

I'm all for compromise. The problem is that Obama just gives away the store and calls that "compromise." He is not tough enough. He can't even get the Democrats to vote consistently with him.

Obama's problem is that he is not selling his ideas -- not to us -- not to the Republicans -- not to our own Democrats in Congress.

When we say that Obama compromises too much, we mean that he does not sell his ideas well. Don't you, way down deep inside, agree?

An example from the past -- with regard to the public option, Obama never allowed the single payer advocates a chance to participate in the debate. Had he invited them in, the public option would have been a compromise between two points of view and the compromise in the middle would have included a public option. By choosing not to give a voice to single-payer advocates, he moved the middle-ground to the right.

He does that -- move the middle-ground to the right -- over and over and over. That is why we don't trust him.

Mind you, I used to be considered a moderate Democrat. Now I am considered a liberal or progressive Democrat. I did not change my views. The party did. Clinton moved us to the right. Obama is moving us even further to the right. His "compromises" start from a position that is on the right wing of the Democratic Party. I do not like that at all. Obama is headed the wrong way, toward the past, on a street that should one way, toward the future.

[WVRICK13]

76. Well Stated

I used to be a liberal Democrat, now I am considered a Socialist bordering on communist. Seriously, I don't think my views are that radical, I see myself as a patriot who wants what is best for the majority of Americans. There are days it feels like I care more about my fellow citizens than they care about themselves.

[ProudDad]

108. Exactly...

I used to be a New Deal Conservative but now...

I'm called a radical Socialist...

Oh, wait, I AM a Radical Socialist in response to realizing how Utterly AWFUL Vampire Capitalism is and the republicans and democrats who work to perpetuate it.

Case in Point:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/obama-congress-near-deal-on-tax-cuts/?hp

[pscot]

26. Time and again the Whitehoue has proved itself inept

at negotiations like this. They invariably look like they've come away with less than they should have gotten. Believe it or not, there are people who are good at this sort of thing. Any pawnbroker could do a better job. Hire a fucking trader. And while they're at it, set up a decent publicity operation. The one they have sucks. You can be brilliant, but nobody will believe it unless you tell them.

[Roy Rolling]

46. so true

Who is a better negotiator, a business person or a politician? Progressives should take some lessons on how to negotiate---they stink at it.

[martymar64]

86. Depends on the negotiator - I'd put Richard Trumka or Brian Schweitzer in

Either of them negotiating against the rethugs would leave the rethugs bleeding from several holes.

Obama may have a law degree but it's obvious that he sucks as a litigator.

He should resign and let Biden take over for the good of the country.

[mitchtv]

160. Progressives?

none in this Admin that I know of. Do you mean Canada?

[potpolpilot]

30. At some point Obama will get tired of being 'laughed at'...and then

he'll grow a couple..or at least one?? half?...quarter?

[mitchtv]

162. Keep "Hoping"

santa and the easter bunny are coming to help

[JamesA1102]

49. Well said Pro Sense

You should top post this.

[mazzarro]

61. So the cave-in will continue through out his presidency?

For Obama not having taken tougher stand in dealing with the teapublicans earlier on when things of lesser severity were on the line has led to this situation where issue of more dire consequence is on line and he has sheer little influence in this struggle. He refused to establish himself strongly and openly and now he is reaping the consequence of backroom dealings and quick compromises and cave-ins and lack of respect from the teapublicans. And as long as he is encouraged by DLCers and people who don't want him to take a stand, his whole presidency will continue to go from one crises to another with the teapublicans holding the upper hand always. This will result in Obama and the democrats possibly becoming irrelevant in the 2012 election because the teapublican primary will automatically bestow upon its winner the presidency - no need for a general election.

[4dsc]

66. I second this emotion

Well put.

[BREMPRO]

93. this is about how you negotiate and the president has given away his hand

before the negotiations even began by signaling a willingness to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy and creating this behind the scenes group to work out a compromise BEFORE the debate and votes in the house and senate. What baffles me is why he didn't use the bully pulpit, press conferences, surrogates, economists etc... to hammer home the reality of the position he took publicly- that it make no economic or moral sense to extend tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. That it will add significantly to the deficit, that it won't create jobs or stimulate the economy If he believes that why not FIGHT for it?!

Remember the clip of the tan man Boner signaling if his only choice was to extend middle class tax cuts he would do that? Well, why is the president giving in when the leader of the new Republican house leader signaled he would compromise in our favor?! Obama has the facts and the american people on his side?

This is just poor negotiation. Let the damn tax cuts expire and blame the republicans (rightly) for holding them hostage to their desire to further enrich their already obscenely wealthy constituents. Brand them the party of the rich. Hold them culpable for the hypocrisy of being for these cuts at the same time they were elected to get the deficit under control. This is a game of PR and rhetoric the White House can and should win. I agree with Krugman- more lost by giving in to the terrorists (R), than holding firm.

Why are they sitting down with house DEMOCRATS now to try to get them to agree to their capitulation, instead of strategizing with them on how to outmaneuver and defeat the republicans on this issue and meeting with republicans after a barrage of PR ? This is profoundly disappointing and shows a fundamental weakness of the president to want to please all sides, compromise away, instead of fighting for principle and the right thing to do.

Where it THE ROCK OBAMA when you need him?

[ProudDad]

106. Get your facts straight!

The RETURN to the tax levels of Clinton for the median taxpayer ($54,000 per year) would be about $1200 per year...

You're using the republican/Obama bullshit number...

This is a $2,689,135 tax break for Rush Limbaugh...$1,512,352 for Glenn Beck...and $1,006,352 for Hannity...and $914,352 for O'Rielly...

Oh, and $638,352 for Sarah Palin... She can use some of it to win the White House in 2012...

[RaleighNCDUer]

133. Speaking of that modest freeze -

why did he give THAT away, instead of holding it as a trade-off against extending unemployment? I would LOVE to play poker with this guy - playing 7 card stud, he'd throw away three cards every time.

[calimary]

161. Or he'd figure out which is his best card, then place it on the table face-up and offer it to you.

GEEEEZ.

So grim. Wonder what else he's going to compromise away - that we've fought for and believe in so fervently? I had so much hope. Now I have only frustration and deep sadness. This guy just gets rolled again and again and again and again and again. Who's advising him? The Pillsbury Dough-boy?

[Caretha]

145. Extension of UI

and the extension of the Bush tax cuts should NEVER EVER have been tied together.

[Jakes Progress]

159. Is there anything Obama could do that you would disagree with?

You say that no one knows the detail of the deal. Is there any deal that you wouldn't rubber stamp? Is there a line the administration might cross that you would find objectionable? What would that be?

[creon]

193. true

That is a very sensible post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Not to worry. At least 570% of the base are swooning at the sight of him.

[katnapped]

132. Wait...what?

I thought Gallup's number was up to 650%. Or was that yesterday?

[VPStoltz]

173. WRONG! I'm the base and I'm growing sick of him.

[Azathoth]

7. No, professional leftists (most of whom make good salaries) are prepared to write him off

Average middle-class folk don't give a shit about going down with the ship for the sake of ideology. They are the ultimate pragmatists: they want things like their taxes to stay low and their unemployment benefits to be extended while they continue to look for work. If getting that means some rich folk will get to buy another yacht, so be it.

[Better Believe It]

10. They want good paying jobs and an end to the foreclosures. That's what they voted for in 2008.

And how is the working class doing now compared to two years ago?

Better or worse?

You know the answer to that and so does everyone else.

[Azathoth]

14. Sure, those too. The common thread is that they want tangible benefits

They want things that will impact their lives for the better in the here and now. They don't give a shit about ideological last-stands and Washington brinkmanship.

If Obama has two options, either (a) compromise on tax cuts for two years and in so doing secure an extension of unemployment benefits or (b) make an idealogical last-stand and watch as taxes go up on everyone while unemployment benefits run out...I'd say option a is the one that people will see more tangible benefit from.

[ProudDad]

111. You missed the option that people with real courage used to use

Get an extension of unemployment benefits...

AND tax relief for the non-rich!

Now he's "getting" a 19/20 republican and 1/20 democrat "deal"...

About par for the course with this latest model...

[treestar]

16. +10000

they do not want a display of ideological "courage." Or to take the consequences for it.

[JDPriestly]

25. The Tea-Baggers and Republicans won on threats about our growing

deficit. How do you suppose Obama plans to "compromise" on the tax cuts and unemployment and still balance the budget and cut the deficit? It cannot be done.

Joanne posted an interesting article today on Adam Smith. Read it and face the reality.

[Azathoth]

31. I largely agree with the article

The catfood commission was a failure, and it is slinking out the door with its tail between its legs as we speak. I don't, however, think the deficit will be an insurmountable issue for Dems in 2012. It played an inflated role in 2010 because, as is usual during a midterm, the election was dominated by the more "engaged" voters, and these engaged voters were disproportionately angry, teabag-friendly folks who watched a lot of Fox News. (Didn't the exit polls show something like 50% approval for the Tea Party?) Voter turnout demographics will (hopefully) be a lot different in 2012 -- a Presidential election.

If Obama has the option of making one of two arguments to the American voters in 2012, either (a) everybody kept their tax cuts and their unemployment benefits but the deficit didn't go down or (b) everybody lost their tax cuts and their unemployment benefits but, hey, the deficit decreased slightly...I think option a will be the one that goes over better with the electorate.

[JDPriestly]

33. Depends on what happens to Social Security.

If Obama allows the tax cuts for working/earning people to continue but cuts Social Security benefits and acquiesces to the end of the unemployment benefits, a huge number of voters will sit out any election in which he runs against a Social Security opponent on the other side.

These tax cuts can only continue if big cuts are made in the budget. The military won't be cut sufficiently because our generals' failures in Iraq and Afghanistan guarantee their job security. (Strange how failure in the military only means two things -- death or secure employment for the foreseeable future.) So, the cuts will be to things like food stamps, education and, the big one, Social Security.

"Compromising" means giving something up. So what is Obama giving up? I'll bet you anything it is Social Security benefits. He doesn't like old people anyway.

[hfojvt]

47. you seem to be forgetting about the Republican house

Republicans are currently in a minority and they are demanding a pound of flesh. Obama is gonna 'compromise' that down to 15.94 ounces and declare victory because of the .06 ounces that he saved. How many more pounds of flesh will the Republican house demand in the next two years? What will Obama cave in to next year when he has far less negotiating power.

Yes, voters are gonna be mad about not getting their tax cuts, but why should they blame Democrats for that? Democrats voted twice for tax cuts already and Republicans voted against it twice because they DEMANDED tax cuts for people with incomes over $1 million.

By taking a stand, Democrats can distinguish themselves from the other party. Obama can show that he fights against people with incomes over $1 million while Republicans fight for them. If you want middle class tax cuts, then don't vote for Republicans because all they want, all they will fight for, is tax cuts for the rich.

By caving in, it just shows that Democrats will also support tax cuts for the rich, as long as they are combined with smaller tax cuts for working people. That Democrats do not have the guts to oppose a fraud.

But at least voters will have a choice. They can vote for Republicans who will advance conservative policies or they can vote for Democrats who will always fold like a cheap suit and allow conservative policies to pass. Either way, the voters get conservative policies. Hurray for democracy.

[rpannier]

97. My concern is less about Obama than it is what will his effect be on the other races

In 1996, Clinton beat Dole fairly easily.

The Republicans knew they were going to lose so they shifted strategy -- "Do you want the Democrats under Clinton to control both Houses as well as the Presidency."

For the most part it was effective. The Republicans took 3 Democratic Senate seats (including Arkansas) and they lost 9 House seats (Not cause for celebration, but it certainly was better for the Republicans than it should have been)

If Obama and the Democrats in Congress can't get their act together, we could see a repeat of 1996.

[ProudDad]

112. He's going to give in on tax breaks for the uber-rich

crumbs for the unemployed...

Will NOT balance the budget...

Will INCREASE the deficit...

And will CUT Social Security and Medicare...


Cutting the Deficit won't be done until the empire is shut down, the war budget SLASHED, we power down and relocalize and we get Improved and Enhanced Medicare for ALL...

But that's too damn rational...

[hfojvt]

43. says you

I am prepared to write him off on this and the deficit commission, which he still has not rejected. Shall we compare salaries now? My taxable income from my paycheck last friday is now up to $11,575.33.

[griffi94]

62. those ultimate pragmatists

just voted the gop back into the house. i'd say that had they been satisfied that wouldn't have happened.
voting gop is a bad way to go, but since we only have the 2 options of dem or gop they chose the one they weren't dissatisfied with at the moment.

and you're leaving out something else they wanted. living wage jobs and the public option. polling data shows overwhelming support for letting the top tier taxcuts expire.

my guess is that when all the taxcuts are renewed and the gop then wants to cut ss to balance the budget, obama will go along.
will your position then be that people want a balanced budget and if some seniors get screwed the people will be alright with that as well.

[flyarm]

8. Starting? Dan Rather on MSNBC today said the Big Money $$$ people who donate to Dems are giving

Obama 2-4 months..if he doesn't show improvement..they are going to look to Primary Obama!

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I hope that's true

[jillan]

13. I can't believe I'm saying this - but - GOOD!

[sirthomas66]

Sounds about right. I think Grayson. At least we would have a warrior.

[Dinger]

40. Good!

[Larkspur]

44. I hope they support Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) for Prez

whether it be for 2012 or 2016.

Schweitzer knows how to fight the Reich Wing and appeal to "Moderates" and Progressives. His term is up in 2012 and he can't run for re-election as Gov as Montana has a 2 term limit.

Here's what Schweitzer is currently working on for the people of his state -- Brian Schweitzer Seeking Federal Permission For Cheap-Drugs Plan

I see Gov. Schweitzer as our modern day Teddy Roosevelt. And unlike faux-rancher Dubya, Brian actually knows how to ride a horse!

[martymar64]

90. He's my choice too!

Schweitzer in 12!!!

[Steve_I_Am]

52. The Big $$$ People . . .

aren't going to run a PROGRESSIVE . . . we need to do that ourselves!

I say "Draft HOWARD DEAN in 2012!"

[Selatius]

88. You honestly think the wealthiest are going to replace Obama with someone to the left? nt

[flyarm]

130. I didn;t tell you what I think..I told you what Dan Rather said. eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. The leftier the government is, the better off the wealthy are.

Trickle down is a lie - wealth flows upward. Empower the bottom tier, and the wealthy will naturally increase their wealth. The only way they've gained over the past 30 years is by rigging the system, but it is a pyramid scheme - when the base of the pyramid has nothing left to offer, the entire structure collapses.

You DON'T want to be around when that happens.

[myrna minx]

12. I can't believe I fell for his hope and change bs.

:-( I can't believe I've enabled some of these horrendous policies due to my vote.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Is it at all possible that no one in the WHite House or anywhere else int he administration is aware

of the growing anger and disappointment? They cannot possibly believe that this will all just disappear by 2012..
Perhaps, Obama does not want to be a two-term President.

[Hawkowl]

24. I've been saying that for a year

Obama simply doesn't act like he want another term. His body language just conveys defeat and no interest in being a leader.

[hay rick]

63. Maybe he doesn't even want to be a one-term president.

He could pull a Palin and quit in January after he gets his two years in. That would be change I can believe in.

[Nevernose]

168. Yes. It's entirely possible.

The WH is an incredibly insulated place, surrounded by a city that's been renowned for being out of touch since the 1820s.

Add to that Obama's staff choices for important positions: DC insiders, Wall Street insiders, and clueless fucks like Arne Duncan, and the problem is even further compounded.

Also, I believe that they believe that this is the same old game -- they're so knee-deep in it, they don't realize that the rules have changed. This is a world where the filibuster never ends (and for no particular reason) and a world in which Sarah Palin stands a very good chance at being our next president. Not to mention the corruption...

So yes, they may very well be illuminating their path with the sunshine coming from their own asses.

[Martin Eden]

27. I WILL WRITE HIM OFF if he extends tax cuts for the rich

If Obama caves on this issue I am done with him, and will support a challenger for the presidential primary in 2012.

[Martin Eden]

28. I WILL WRITE HIM OFF if he extends tax cuts for the rich

If Obama caves on this issue I am done with him, and will support a challenger for the presidential primary in 2012.

[Scurrilous]

34. K & R

Truth to the power!!1!

[Poboy]

36. The man is worse than worthless. He is destroying our party, imo.

[COLGATE4]

115. K&R

[bigtree]

37. voters? Krugman should speak for himself.

[frylock]

92. he speaks for me

[harun]

105. He's telling the truth. That is good with me.

[Skittles]

155. he speaks for thinking people

[hfojvt]

39. if you don't stand for something ...

Thank you, Mr. Krugman.

[Lorien]

41. He's not timid; he's getting just what he wants. nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

140. +1000

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[lyonn]

45. Recomended after reading the first paragraph

May edit after further reading, thanks for post.

Edit:
Obama has put himself in a lose, lose situation. For what, a vote in 2012? I'd vote for any Dem before a Repub, but most of the voting population are not yellow dogs like me. Hell, I voted for Reagan - twice. I had to watch my friends lose their homes during his admin. Remember the massive bank failures? We can only make choices from the info we have at the time. Well, now I vote for what the party stands for and Dems care about the country, not the corporations and the powerful. So many that vote R must be wannabees??? Who do they think will pay for Bush's wars? Our transportation system sucks, go to Europe, check it out there. We are buying solar power and wind energy machines from China?? Is anyone paying attention to reality?

[Vidar]

48. K&R.

[Steve_I_Am]

50. Once again, Nobel Prize-winning Economist, Paul Krugman . . .

tells it like it is. The problem is, President Obama appears to have his head so far up Mitch McConnell's ass, that he can't hear anything.

[Grinchie]

53. Krugman's wrong, a lot of us have written Obama off years ago

In fact, as the days slog along, Obama and his rhetoric become more repugnant to anyone that is awake, and that includes the entire World that watches the US with Media 100 fold more effective than our Corporate Media.

The DLC Clan has effective killed the Democratic party to the point where the Former base of the Democratic party and all it stood for want to rebrand and regroup in order to distance themselves tfrom the Toxic mess this administration has dumped all over the moniker called Democrat.

Personally, I care not about taxes in the slightest. I recall losing a career of 25 years in the software industry, and the only help I got was a Tax cut and a 300 dollar tax rebate check from Dubya..

Tax cuts are meaningless if people don't have an income.

Furthermore, the Government doesn't provide meaningful accounting for the money it receives, nor does it specify with clarity what it is spent on. All we know is that it's 3 billion dollars a week for Afganistan operations, which is not chump change in regards to the people that are trapped in a system that requires food, water, electricity and heat just to keep their heads above water in a system that has forced them to be totally dependant on fiat money to provide for these necessities.

At least I had the foresight to leave the system and invest wisely in fertile land and lots of food producing crops. It was the best investment I ever made, right along with all the tools I need to provided 90% of my needs on my own. I am deeply disturbed at what I see happening to the infrastructure and supply systems in America. They are all controlled by too big to fail Corporations, financed by funny money, and propped up by the Government.

[BigBearJohn]

177. agreed 100%

[madmax]

55. I'm a dreamer

The fantasy - I thought Obama would be 'Dave' played by Kevin Kline or 'The American President' played by Michael Douglas.

In reality, based on his campaign promises, style, the fire in his belly I thought he'd try to emulate FDR or JFK.

So much for fantasy and reality. :(

Simply can NOT understand what he's doing or more importantly, WHY!

[WiffenPoof]

56. I Would Prefer That...

the President fight for his convictions and fail, than not fight at all.

-PLA

[GreenTea]

58. Absoluely the tax cuts should be allowed to EXPIRE!

Only the unfeeling, unknowledg­eable, uninformed would want the deficit to explode even further and add the hundreds of billions of dollars form th tax cuts for the richest 2% to our deficit!

Why should the rich have these ridiculous outrageous selfish tax cuts in this economy, with America involved in two costly wars and tens of millions of people out of work?

These Bush 10 year tax cuts have produced NO jobs which is very evident & obvious to ALL and the ONLY ONES WHO WANT THESE TAX CUTS ARE THE EXTREMELY GREEDY WEALTHY AND THE REPUBLICAN­S.

Even some wealthy who actually care say the tax cuts are wrong and unfair - yet the truly selfish and the republican­s persist...­.WHY?

Absoluely the tax cuts should be allowed to EXPIRE!

But Obama will cave in the republicans again!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

80. ditto! let them EXPIRE!!

[xchrom]

59. Recommend

[tweeternik]

64. Seriously, is there ANY reality based

thought on this site? All of this talk of Obama 'giving tax cuts to the rich' is bullshit!! Don't you listen. HE is against them, but HE can't decide. Congressional approval is required and this couldn't be achieved with the $1,000,000 upper limit! 'They' want tax cuts for 'everyone'!! How noble of them! How does he get ANY of these clowns to vote with him? What should he do? And don't say, "try", because I think he has been trying! They want him to fail and you all are playing right into their hands. I can understand the disappointment ... I'm disappointed too, but try to temper your disappointment with a touch of what realistically can be achieved.

[lildreamer316]

69. Okay, but the point is

that most people feel he wouldn't be in the position of having to deal with 'what can be realistically achieved' if he, and the formerly Democratically-controlled Congress, hadn't shown such spinelessness before the midterms. Now, of course, we have to settle for whatever he can work out. Sure, it's a little late to be standing up for something; but if he wants to have any chance of fixing his lame duck status, he has to take a stand in the court of public opinion now. He's backed himself into a corner and there's no other way to politically survive - at least in MHO. I don't take any joy in that fact, however.

[OneGrassRoot]

117. Very well said. Thanks. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

70. Why have a president

if the argument for his every failure is that the president is powerless and impotent?

Obama is certainly up against it with this legislature (and this electorate) but he has consistently played his hand poorly and shown poor judgement in the way to handle things.

[julian09]

83. We will be having this discussion in 2012 again

I blame the people who rewarded the obstructionisms in the last election.
Obama is always boxed in by the blue dogs, some of whom he backed.

I hope people realize that these tax cuts will be at the expense of soc.security and
other progressive programs. Well they showed him, because he couldn't get unemployment down
fast enough. The banks won't lend, big business sitting on trillions, won't hire; just to bring him down.
Can he credibly run on doing away with tax cuts for the very rich again in 2012.
We have to thank the low information voters for this, for not educating themselves on issues.

[Caretha]

148. Do you listen to yourself????

Obama is always boxed in by the blue dogs, some of whom he backed

He is a BLUE DOG that's why he backed them....buy a damn clue!

[Doc Martin]

71. Too Timid to Take a Stand

That captures my assessment of the president. I can't imagine any other explanation for his baffling behavior.

[BlueIris]

72. Timidity has little to do with why he is making the decisions he's making.

He actually thinks this agenda is sustainable, even good.

Very sad.

[davidwparker]

74. He lost me when stopped the investigation Spain had

concerning war crimes.

It wasn't going to happen after that.

[russspeakeasy]

89. Thank you for a sensible post.. That's when he lost me too.

[amborin]

75. K&R i love the UAW slogan: ...stand for something, or you'll fall for anything

[hulka38]

77. When are Democrats going to understand,

we need to root out the DLC in all its forms first and foremost before we can effectively take on the GOP and win.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

78. He is 100% correct...and we can now kiss social security goodbye

[Creative]

81. I don't know about most voters, but I see Obama as simply positioning himself for 2012.

[BREMPRO]

94. positioning yes- bending over- not a strong, wise or winning position

[Creative]

98. I really don't see where he has a choice now. This has not been handled very well at all.

The issue should be off the table, for it could have been easily managed at some point during the past two years.

[howaboutme]

107. It's off the table, looking forward not backward, let's compromise, let's be friends....

....let's sing kumbaya.

You could see this moment coming. Where have we heard all that before? It's all a giant sucking sound where the establishment elite of Wall St who created our poor economy now get to plunder it further and become far richER while your next 5 generations of offspring will get the bills. You look at those who Obama appointed as czars. Did they represent a broad America. Hell no. They represented an elite segment that took care of themselves.

I have no confidence in politicians just as I have no confidence in our once 4th estate, the media. They are all corrupt. But we can't just sit down and do nothing, we need to fight and fight hard.

We needed an individual with vision, and the guts to take on interests, an an individual with ethics above everything and a will to take on the establishment that has worked so hard against the USA. Instead we got the great COMPROMISER who gives the people 15% and the establishment 85%. I've been fooled before and I'll be fooled again but I'll be damned if it will be by the same people or party. Cynicism works but we were too naive.

I donated time and money and I'm one pissed MFer.

[liberation]

122. He threw a big chunk of the Dem base, liberals, under the bus.

So indeed he will need the center-right to carry him in 2012, and obviously he seems to be triangulating that way.

However, claiming that "he has no choice" is a bit disingenuous. Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to shit on the left. Or maybe, they did. Who knows at this point... And more importantly, who gives a shit... because the problems are far more pervasive and systemic than we care to realize. In the big scheme of things... I don't really blame Obama that much. Because, honestly, there is very precious little he could have done any ways.

[Creative]

131. He didn't $#!t on the left, if anything, it was the other way around.

Pelosi and Reid should have taken the tax issue of the table two years ago. However, they chose to put it off and now it's come back to bite everyone in the ass.

You are right, the problems this nation faces are far worse than most people realize. I wouldn't worry too much though, for the Republicans also lack the will to deal with them. Thus, everything will pretty much stay the same as it has been.

Meanwhile, the termites continue to eat away at the foundation of this nation.

[The Wizard]

199. The only guy who could successfully triangulate

was Bill Clinton. Obama is no Bill Clinton.

[floriduck]

87. This President is Passively Complicit

Every time he fails to take a stand against dangerous Republican positions, he becomes complicit in supporting their ideology and he loses more and more supporters. I didn't contribute money and support him in 2008 so he could fail to support the positions I and his other voters stood for. I cannot remain a supporter of his or any Republican. I want him challenged by another Dem so Obama will either wake up or go down in defeat.

[RetroLounge]

91. K&R

fun to watch the apologists in this thread too...

RL

[freedom fighter jh]

95. dupe -- deleted

[freedom fighter jh]

96. I agree with you, BBI

I think Simpson gave it away when he talked about the coming "bloodbath." The Republicans will hold out on raising the debt ceiling, the government will be forced to close down, and Congress and the White House will be forced -- forced! -- to use social security funds to lower the deficit. Thus money collected through social security tax will no longer be kept just for that purpose, and people who earn average and low incomes will be paying this regressive (meaning taking a higher percentage of the income of people who earn less) tax to fund things other than social security -- like war.

[Confusious]

180. Those funds have alreadyy been spent

The Social Security trust fund is full of IOU's. If it wasn't, why would they say it was going broke? The reason they say that is that so they can just wipe the money middle America paid into it off the books. They gave all that money to the rich already, starting with Reagan. If they actually have to pay back that money, the rich are going to have to choke some up, and they don't want to do that.

[maritzasolito]

99. We love republicans and lets act us such!

*

[ProudDad]

101. Read it and weep...

The "Cave-in" Administration caves in again...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/obama-congress-near-deal-on-tax-cuts/?hp

Easy to blackmail, aren't they?

Then, in 2 years and 2 months with a repuke House, Senate and pResident Palin, they'll make 'em permanent...


God Damn!

“Make no mistake, allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family and that could cost our economy well over a million jobs,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Republican Bullshit!!!

And the FUCKERS ARE GOING TO CUT Social Security soon...

Thanks for nothing!

[countmyvote4real]

109. Gee, it's good to have a Democrat as POTUS. If only it were true.

After reading this article I have to believe the next two years of Obama could be as bad or worse than they were under the appointed one. His only option is not to sign into law the insanity that coming from the next congress. And I'm not sure he is capable to withhold his signature. It's over. He will not be reelected. He shouldn't. Unless there is a strong primary challenge, we will be inaugurating the reign of Sarah the Great, Inc.

I'm very sad.

[howaboutme]

118. We've been had

and it was by the likes of Wall Street and Goldman who nourished everything including the scamming of America and of those Democrats who believed in Obama and had change they could believe in.

I got into some arguments before the nomination with Hillary Democrats who vehemently said he was set-up. I didn't believe it then. But I actually wonder if Hillary would be any better. REMEMBER It was Bill Clinton with his signing of NAFTA and MFN for China that benefited Wall Street again but crushed the USA manufacturing economy.

The USA has been hijacked and is currently run strictly for the benefit of global capitalists, bankers and other nations.

[generalbetrayus]

171. I read the discussions regularly, but don't comment very often,

but I just couldn't pass on your reference to the POTUS. I paid $420 for a roundtrip airline ticket to DC in January 2009 to see the first African-American President inaugurated, an event I thought I'd never see in my lifetime. But instead of that brave black man I thought I'd voted for, all I got (besides an Obama t-shirt that's going to Goodwill) was a PUTUS (Presiding Uncle Tom, United States). Bow down, Barry, to Marsas Boehner and McConnell. :banghead:

[BigBearJohn]

179. wow

[countmyvote4real]

110. Gee, it's good to have a Democrat as POTUS. If only it were true.

After reading this article I have to believe the next two years of Obama could be as bad or worse than they were under the appointed one. His only option is not to sign into law the insanity that's coming from the next congress. And I'm not sure he is capable of withholding his signature. It's over. He will not be reelected. He shouldn't. Unless there is a strong primary challenge, we will be inaugurating the reign of Sarah the Great, Inc.

I'm very sad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. STARTING?

But sad truth is it don't matter who gets elected. Until the Empire falls, with all the pain in it, this is what the POTUS has to do, preserve the empire at all costs

Everything else is illusion...

[ProudDad]

114. Face it, folks

The Corpos own it all...

This is the best you can expect from the Feds...

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

135. "Too timid" is putting waaay to mildly. He either is a coward or stands with them. He is gonzo. nm

[Major Hogwash]

136. I didn't know Krugman took polls.

Maybe he thought he was in control of the bus, too.

WRONG!

[DuaneBidoux]

138. My post was removed....which in my opinion proves my point...

The entire Democratic party has become nice in the face of Genghis Khan.

Until we face the fact that we have Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Genghis Khan (aka "Republicans") we will keep getting our asses kicked.

In a nicer way, so I won't be blocked, let me say I will never vote for Neville Chamberlain. The one exception would be if Palin ran.

I am through with Obama.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

141. They'll probably run Palin. A guarantee that Obama will be

re-elected and continue to enrich the upper tier, expand the invasions, and throw a few
measly crumbs to the peasants to keep them pacified. Why wouldn't a Republican vote for him
after the deal he made today on the Bush tax cuts? There's nothing I can think of that
would cause any reichwingers to have a problem with them.

Last week he announced a proposal to freeze pay for non-military federal employees for two years,
a plan that will lead to $60 billion in lost income for government employees over ten years. It's
the middle class, what's left of it, taking all the hits.

We have been conned. Well done fascist, scum sucking repukes.

[ProudDad]

150. Yep... The corporate capitalist masters

will make sure Palin is the republican nominee...

So their guy Obama gets reelected and continues to do their dirty work...

With a republican House AND Senate...

William J. Clinton redux... (I'm not allowed to call him sl... w.... you know... not supposed to be "disrespectful" to someone I don't respect...)

[Joe Bacon]

170. They said the same things about Reagan in 1979

The Sunday gasbags and the Broders in the papers uttered the same stuff against Reagan in 1979 and look what happened. Palin is following the Reagan playbook down to the last letter. She is NOT going to be the pushover that folks are mistakenly believing. She will be a VERY dangerous opponent for Obama. And he will play right into her hands just as Jimmy Carter let himself get played by Reagan.

[Moondog]

139. Starting? You're a day late and a dollar short, Paul.

[madrchsod]

142. 6 more forecloses this week in my republican hell

the same last week
the same the week before

averaging around 20 a month for the last year or so....

is there any wonder why the american people are fed up with obama.

[Fire1]

212. And that's his fault?? I don't think so. n/t

[cilla4progress]

144. WHO WILL FIGHT FOR US...

no one, apparently.

Obama says people don't want "symbolic" gestures - fighting for those principles and promises he ran on.

He's entirely wrong. What we needed to do was show our strength.

Sorry - he hasn't earned another term.

[babsbunny]

146. Starting?

[tomp]

147. no, no, no!

obama is doing exactly what he intended to do: give as much to the rich and as little to the poor and middle class as possible, this side of revolution.

the democratic party is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: appear to be the opposition, while giving the rich what it wants at the expense of the poor and middle class.

the president and the party are absolute experts and masters at doing this, while making roughly half the country think they are on our side.

even the vaunted holy of holies, the progressive caucus, is part of the problem, in that they have so far proved inept (see any one of john conyers strongly worded letters, e.g.) and at the same time refuse to break with the party, leaving the vast majority of progressive voters with no real electoral option.

there are people on this website who would die for the democratic party but want julian assange dead.

after a while the only excuse for not seeing this is stupidity because, of course, the complicit see it very clearly-they just won't tell you who they are.

[bertman]

151. "... voters are starting to write off Obama as a man too timid to take a stand."

Starting??

The Presididn't didn't take a stand on getting the size stimulus needed, he didn't take a stand on a public option, he didn't take a stand on getting out of Afghanistan in 2011, he didn't take a stand on prosecuting torturers and war criminals, he didn't take a stand on protecting the rights of Americans from being spied on without warrants, he didn't take a stand on Don't Ask Don't Tell, he didn't take a stand when he could have NOT appointed the Catfood Commission, he didn't take a stand on getting tough federal regulation of Wall Street, he didn't take a stand on making BP fully liable for cleaning up the Gulf, and now he's not taking a stand on reducing the deficit like he's been bloviating about for months.

Let's face it, the man is the Capitulator in Chief.

He doesn't know how to fight or how to take a stand.

This is a sad day for democracy, for Democrats, and for America.

[StarsInHerHair]

152. President Clinton raised taxes in the early 1990s w/GOP screaming it'd destroy

the nation..........it didn't. I just go back and look at the opinions of the GOP to see just how long they've been dead wrong on everything; it gives me confidence, perhaps Obama needs to look them over.

[UrbScotty]

153. WRONG, says Gallup - 83% support among liberal Democrats (higher than last week)!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[Pholus]

157. Yup, but the independents that swept him into office are not thrilled right now.

[Jakes Progress]

164. The poll you cite proves Krugman right.

He is down everywhere except in the smallest group sampled. These polls are crap anyway. What was the question they asked. If a pollster asks me if I approve of Obama, I would probably tell him yes. But that is because I don't air the party's dirty laundry. Back in the kitchen, i would tell him he needs to get his act together, that he is a disappointment, and that his job is in peril. I think that is about how it really goes.

However. Krugman's column said Obama was in trouble and viewed as ineffective by voters, not just by liberal Democrats. This poll would seem to support that.

[Pholus]

182. +1

[Beacool]

208. According to the link you posted, his approval among liberals is 70%.

Total Democratic support is 78%.

;-)

[Riley18]

154. I feel betrayed and let down by the president. At least I never

expected anything good to come from Bush, but this time it was supposed to be different. There is no hope left for this country.

[unkachuck]

163. K&R....n/t

[bhikkhu]

166. Worn out, betrayed, ready to vote for someone who'll do what they say they'll do...

This from someone very reluctant to criticize, but writing him off as too timid is starting to look like the realistic necessity.

There is nothing magic about "compromise" in congress that keeps what is done from wrecking the countries potentials and possibilities. Well on the way to being a second-rate dysfunctional backwater of squalling adult-sized children, too steeped in mental poverty to matter much to anyone beyond our borders, we just took another big step. At some point there is a point of no return, and I wonder if it is still in front of us, or passed already.

[earcandle]

167. The economy is depressed because we have no tax revenues... revenues are income.

what a bunch of dumbfucks.  Americans deserve what they get.

[earcandle]

169. And if they lower you FICA and MED tax, that will short Social Security.. dumb... really dumb.

They need the taxes from the rich to refund what they borrowed
from Social Security.
And we shouldn't be lowering that tax, we should be increasing
it so we can afford to retire.

Idiots. I won't get stressed about this stupidity. I refused
to get stressed.. I refuse to get stressed.

[VPStoltz]

172. And I'm one of them.

[farmboxer]

176. Will Obama Cut Social Security? Medicare?

If Republicans want it he will be for it.

[TBF]

187. He's already for it - why do you think he formed his "deficit commission"?

Why do you think in the first State of the Union address he stated that we need to "have a conversation" about Social Security?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

This is not something he came up with yesterday - they've been planning it. Makes you wonder if the whole thing if just theatre ...

[Democat]

181. Why should Americans trust Obama to do what's right for the country?

He won't even do what's right for himself or his party.

[MissDeeds]

196. Agreed

He's wimping himself right out of the White House.

[Owl]

189. K&R

[creon]

191. ignored

Krugman was, and remains, largely ignored.

He had, and has, good advice on what needs to be done with the economy. But, he does not advocate the conventional wisdom.

As for the politics, we shall see how that turns out.

[MissDeeds]

197. K&R

[TheCowsCameHome]

200. Republicans skin you alive, then have the nerve to use your stove to cook you..

We are so fucked........

[Capt. America]

202. I thought I voted for the Democrat in 2008.

[VeryConfused]

213. I agree

He should go for the throat

[TacticalPeek]

214. Jeb Bush is reportedly furious

Jeb Bush is reportedly furious that Obama became the third President Bush.

[dpbrown]

215. Yup. Most people were looking for protection from the rich and corporations

That's the change people were after. Not more of the same. Not more Bush. Not more Bush tax cuts for the rich. Not more Bush wars. Not more Bush secrecy in government. Not more oligarchy.

[blindpig]

216. What a tool

I thought Krugman mighta been smarter than that.

"Obama is timid!" "Obama is inept!" Blah, blah, blah....

Ain't no way, he'd never have made it out of Chicago if he was such a dolt.

Can there be any doubt that what we're seeing is intent?