As Greg Sargent points out, what Obama is doing isn't even triangulation.

[BzaDem]

Most people consider triangulation to be accepting worse (centrist) policy than he could otherwise get, in order to gain political favor with some non-left constituency.

But that isn't what's going on here. Obama is not signing Welfare Reform (a bad policy) to gain political favor with Independents. He is getting the best policy deal he can actually get. He is not accepting policy that is at ALL worse than what he could get, like Clinton did.

This isn't to say that he won't triangulate in the future -- he very well might. I'm just pointing out (actually Greg is pointing out, and I am citing him) that this particular deal does not fit most peoples' conception of the term triangulation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/is_obama_triangulating.html

--snip--

"Obama's argument with the left, at bottom, is more a dispute over what's achievable, and less an argument over what is desirable to achieve. Obama opposes extending the high end tax cuts, just as the left does. His disagreement with the left is over whether there's another way to achieve the goals Obama and the left agree on: Extending the middle class cuts and extending unemployment benefits. The left says a protracted fight would achieve those things. Obama and his advisers say a fight wouldn't achieve those things, or at least that a fight wouldn't achieve them in time to stave off a tax hike for the middle class. Hence his willingness to reach a deal.

Indeed, Obama's outburst yesterday was rooted in genuine frustration with the left for not agreeing with him about what's possible given today's political realities. It's true that Obama is exploiting this disagreement with the left for political reasons, to position himself as the adult-in-chief and to rise above Congress and the process. This is annoying and counterproductive and a major turn-off to his supporters. But it isn't triangulation."

[leftstreet]

1. When a party has majorities in the House, Senate & Admin anything is achievable

[BzaDem]

3. When people say that, it shows how lacking our civics education is in this country. n/t

[leftstreet]

4. What are you talking about?

The Democrats have had the majority for two years

[BzaDem]

6. My point is that anyone who thinks that having a President and majorities means that "anything is

possible" is so wrong that the mere act of saying that shows how poor our civics education is in this country.

It would be like someone saying that the judicial branch can declare war on another country.

[leftstreet]

8. LOL n/t

[tcaudilllg]

12. Reconciliation works only once a year...

however, Dems have a responsibility to insist on a working solution to our nation's problems. Reagonomics is not it.

[BzaDem]

14. "Insisting" does not actually mean "passing." The ability to "insist" is FAR greater than the

ability to pass a bill.

[leftstreet]

17. I 'insist' that you tell us what would help the 'ability' to 'pass' a bill

:popcorn:

[BzaDem]

21. Perhaps having 60 Senators that support the bill in question? n/t

[leftstreet]

24. When people say that, it shows how lacking our civics education is in this country

60 is a myth

[BzaDem]

28. 60 is as much of a "myth" as global warming. n/t

[frylock]

30. why not 100?

shit, i'll bet obama could get even more done with 200 votes in the senate. tell us, what else did you learn in civics?

[BzaDem]

33. Because you don't need 100? n/t

[frylock]

34. very insightful..

please, share more of your wisdom. i have a notepad at the ready.

[BzaDem]

36. If you ask another question, I'd be happy to. n/t

[frylock]

43. will do!

have an annointed day!

[Egnever]

32. Wow well said!

[aquart]

2. He's frustrated? SO AM I.

It isn't a deal to give away everything you have and then help the thieves carry it to the car. It isn't the best of anything.

You are pretending we are dealing with a solvent economy. WE ARE NOT. Obama has just guaranteed it won't be. He didn't protect the unemployed. He destroyed them for the rest of their lives.

[BzaDem]

5. "He destroyed them for the rest of their lives." Perhaps you think that, but even the vast majority

of elected progressives who might oppose the deal don't think that.

Bernie Sanders is in favor of all of the Democratic proposals in the bill (extending tax cuts to the middle class, and unemployment benefits). He just thinks he can get a better deal. But if he knew he couldn't, he would never let all taxes on the middle class go up and unemployment expire. He said that on TV multiple times. His fight is only because he thinks he knows more about what's feasible than Obama.

[aquart]

10. Then they aren't facing what's happened.

They are looking to the next election. And Bernie wouldn't say this even if it's true. He isn't Glenn Beck living to spread terror. He's interested in working toward solutions.

But it is true.

[BzaDem]

13. Or perhaps you are the one that isn't understanding what's happened. n/t

[aquart]

35. Nah.

[Angry Dragon]

7. The thing that is left out of most discussions is the 2% reduction in SS

Just a small thing but probably has the biggest impact on everything.
Get a little more money now and end up with less or no Social Security
Social security is under attack now for being short of money and then you are going to take out more??
Makes no sense. It will only open the big chance that they will do all kinds of things to
dramatically overhaul SS or even privatize it. Then it will not be there

[BzaDem]

9. Um, no. The trust fund is fully reimbursed by the general fun for the full amount of the tax cut. nt

"It will only open the big chance that they will do all kinds of things to dramatically overhaul SS or even privatize it."

Whether or not that chance exists, it has NOTHING to do with the payroll tax holiday.

[Angry Dragon]

16. I noticed you posted in this thread

Just like they did with the temporary tax cuts ..right??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9729673

[BzaDem]

19. They extended the temporary tax cuts because the economy isn't growing. That won't be the case

forever. Anyone who can't distinguish between a stagnant economy like today, and a growing economy in the future, is incredibly naive.

[Angry Dragon]

22. Where is this economy going to grow??

[BzaDem]

23. Nearly all economists forcast much higher growth (and somewhat lower unemployment) in 2011 and 2012.

You should ask them.

[Angry Dragon]

25. Any links so I can read the forecasts??

[walldude]

26. You don't need links.. it's every economist..

all of them... well except the ones predicting disaster from this brilliant policy.

[BzaDem]

27. Here is one example

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40339909/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Even with the "slashed" forecasts, they predict higher growth and lower unemployment in 2011 than 2010.

[Angry Dragon]

31. Thank you

[aquart]

38. LOL!

What's going to grow, hon? What industry is up and kicking ass?

[BzaDem]

41. The forecasts I'm talking about are for the entire economy, not for one particular industry.

If you think you are a more qualified economist than, well, actual economists, you are free to think whatever you would like.

[aquart]

44. IOW, you got nuthin'.

See, I've been acquainted with economists much of my life.

And I know that airily citing economists means you are completely uninformed. Sorry, but you make me laugh.

[BzaDem]

45. Hopefully you'll forgive me if I believe actual economists more than uninformed internet posters. nt

[aquart]

49. LOL!

You do that. Funniest stuff I've read all day.

[aquart]

11. Yep.

[tcaudilllg]

15. JOBS JOBS JOBS

MAKE US SOME GODDAMN JOBS.

[bluerum]

18. Agreed. Or there will be additional defunding passed in 2012 or perhaps even sooner, and in 2013

the congress will say "oh look, SS is insolvent. Oh well. Time to cut that lefty shit out and give what is left to the rich and corporations".

The writing is on the wall.

[myrna minx]

20. OMG.

[The Second Stone]

29. Bullshit. Cutting social security taxes

sets a terrible precedent and was entirely unnecessary for any reason.

[Egnever]

39. Except as a stimulous right?

[leftstreet]

40. How is it a stimulus?

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

42. It is a stimulus by definition. n/t

[leftstreet]

47. So is a vibrator. But does it grow the economy?

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

46. oops

wrong spot

[BzaDem]

48. It's an economic stimulus by definition. n/t

[Egnever]

37. I think he nails it

Thanks for posting it.

K&R

[lamp_shade]

50. Keyword: achievable. Great article. Thanks for posting.