I'm usually a defender of Obama, and political pragmatism, but this is killing me now.

[GOPBasher]

I've been defending the centrist/pragmatic approach of Democrats for years on here. Now I'm a bit exhausted, however. I don't get why Obama doesn't make some very, very simple arguments. Here's one:

Obama: "Well Social Security has been running surpluses for years, so we don't have to cut that. Actually, the general treasury has been borrowing from SS for years, so all we need is for the general treasury to pay back the Social Security administration. If that happens, it will make SS solvent for __________ years (I believe around 40 or so, check me if you want). ALSO, and this can't be stressed enough, that will in and of itself pay back a large portion of the national debt. _______% (I believe around 30% or so) of the national debt is simply what the general treasury owes the SS administration. So we can pay back a large portion of the national debt and make SS solvent for the foreseeable future simply by making the general treasury pay back what it owes. How do we do that? Well, we can't ask the middle class and the poor to pay more taxes, so we'll raise income and estate taxes on very high income, say, $500,000 or more per year for income taxes and estates over $5 million. We'll start to dig out of this hole without taking money from seniors.

Forgive me for not doing the research to fill in those blanks. Like I said, I'm very tired of looking at this stuff. This next argument is not mine. It comes from "Jazz Ambassador," and I'm quoting that DUer directly:

"OBAMA: '72% of the American people support raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires as part of an overall package to deal with our debt. 72%! I'm not sure what the issue 72% or Americans agreed on, but there it is. So I have to ask my Republican colleagues: is sheltering the rich from even the tiniest sacrifice so important to you that you are willing to put it ahead of the national interest and the overwhelming will of the American people?'"

Also, they could have raised the debt limit much more when they had complete power on the hill, enough to get through Obama's first term, and then they wouldn't have to deal with this at all.

To those who believe Obama is playing some masterful poker here, I sincerely hope you're right. It just doesn't seem that way to me. It seems like he's getting his ass kicked.

I can handle losing. I can't handle not fighting. And this is exhausting.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I don't know why he didn't make those arguments either...

And goddamn it, it IS exhausting.

I hate second-guessing him.

I know the issues are complex, but come on.

We want him to lead, damn it.

It just doesn't look like it from here...

Recommended.

[MinneapolisMatt]

4. +1

[pnwmom]

2. Unfortunately, 63% of Americans don't support raising the debt ceiling.

And that would include some DUers, from what I've seen. So poll numbers aren't going to be much use here.

[OHdem10]

6. Obama and the Democrates should have been out there making

the case.

INSTEAD THEY HAVE PERMITTED THE REPUBLICANS TO
FRAME THE NARRATIVE and SELL the IDEA OF NOT
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING.

This Non Confrontational Approach is going to
destroy the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has known since JFK was
President that TV is the Media where most
Americans get their information. Yet they
permit the Republicans to monoplize and spread
their gospel with very little push back.

[pnwmom]

19. It isn't as easy to go out to the media as it used to be. Obama can no longer

commandeer time from the three "major" networks anymore, as Presidents used to do. When I was a kid, if a President wanted to speak, there was nothing else to watch on TV -- there he was, on every channel.

Now the three networks aren't nearly as "major" as they used to be. Since the time of JFK, we have changed from a handful of network channels to hundreds of network and cable channels -- the vast majority of whom will NOT be showing any politician's speech. It's not the same TV world that it was in JFK's time.

[woo me with science]

7. He had from Day One of his presidency to change the national conversation on the economy.

Instead, he has perpetuated, participated in, and validated Right Wing framing and lies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. As mentioned above, 72% want to raise taxes on the rich.

Simple solution - raise taxes enough to not need to borrow, and we don't have to raise the debt limit.

Poll numbers CAN be of use, if you look at the right polls.

[pnwmom]

21. And when did he ever have the 60 Senate votes he needed? Never.

When we had 58 votes, 59 with Sanderson, Lieberman was an Independent who had won by beating a Democrat. And he wasn't voting with the Democrats most of the time.

And Obama didn't extend the tax cuts because he wanted to; it was because that was the only way he could get any Republicans to agree to extended unemployment benefits that were critical to millions of families.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Fuck the senate and fuck the unemployment benefits.

If 3 out of 4 voters told their senators that they will vote them out of office if they DON'T raise taxes on the rich, the senators would raise taxes on the rich.

If the republicans killed the unemployment extension, they'd be voted out of office. It was a fucking bluff. And Obama fell for it. And he was apparently not the only one.

DON'T MAKE EXCUSES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY.

[ProSense]

3. "It seems like he's getting his ass kicked."

So of all the times in the past, this is the one time Boehner seems to be winning?

Here's something the President said earlier this year.

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Comments like this get ignored in favor of cliches or attempts to put words in the President's mouth.

Still, how does his statement imply that he is "getting his ass kicked?"

[eilen]

9. Yes, he said this

but he has also kept policies to ensure this state of events. Why doesn't he admit to his own culpability?

[GOPBasher]

11. I do like those statements, but I'm specifically discussing this issue with the debt.

Why didn't they raise the debt limit far more when they had power, so they wouldn't be in this situation? Right now, the Republicans hold all the cards. If we default on the debt limit, we will see another great depression, the president will get blamed (as always is the case), and he'll get his ass kicked in 2012. Also, if he agrees to cut SS, he'll get his ass kicked in 2012. Why doesn't he make those very simple arguments regarding SS and the debt? The vast majority of Americans support SS (even those so-called "libertarians" who are too stupid to realize just what a government program is). Obama, politically speaking, needs to be seen as the one who is trying his hardest to protect social security. If it's cut on his watch, that will forever hung around his neck politically. Ironically, even fiscal conservatives will hang that on him, even if they voted to cut it themselves. How can they do this, you ask? They can do that because the political right in this country is so fucking Orwellian and their idiot sheeple followers lack the ability to think critically. That's how. They've done it before, remember? They attacked Obama for "cutting Medicare" as part of his health care overhaul. How do they do that? How do they get away with such Orwellian double-think? I don't fucking know, but some political strategists in the Democratic party need to wake the fuck up and realize what is so plainly obvious, because I'm really smelling "President Bachmann" in 2013.

I'm on Obama's side here. I want him to do well, because I believe his heart is in the right place. Your quotes in your post give us some good evidence of that. I just have no idea what he's doing here. I will be the happiest person alive if he proves me wrong. I hope that on that Wednesday morning in November, 2012, I look back and say, "Damn, the guy knew what he was doing all along. He protected Social Security, got the debt limit increase, the economy improved and he has another term. Man, was I and idiot or what!" I really, really hope that's the case.

[polmaven]

17. Do you not remember

that the very same Senate Republicans who insisted, for 8 years, on "up or down votes", have now, for 2.5 years "filibustered" nearly everything passed in the House when it got before them in this Senate? You recall, don't you, that it takes more than the House to pass bills into law? It is not as simple as having the "power". If that power is not enough to overcome a filibuster, it won't get passed. Democrats (real ones, anyway) did not have enough votes to overcome the filibusters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Well, YES.

The reason we are seeing what he is describing above is because he got his ass KICKED over ending the Bush tax cuts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. This is killing me too. We need to make it known to him we disapprove of this

I have written him. I understand every letter that gets sent, they count as 100 people sharing the same opinion. So if 2 people write, that's 200 that have the same opinion, although 198 did not write.

[ProSense]

8. Here is a good response

from yesterday's press conference.

[GOPBasher]

14. That's a good statement, and I wish the media would cover it more, but

he's still only fighting for 1/5 of the deficit reduction to come from revenue, and agreeing to allow the other 4/5 to come from spending cuts. Furthermore, he won't even get that, because the GOP can ride this out. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If the economy crashes to Depression-era levels because of a debt default, the president will get blamed. That is always the case. But still, that is a good statement, I agree. And if that continues, perhaps he will be seen as the champion of social security, and we can right this ship after 2012. I have hope.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Agreed mostly. Caveats:

1) the solvency projection of SS presumes that the US honors its debts. They are using an impossibly pessimistic projection that in 25 years the trust fund will be exhausted. This is also a point at which few boomers (the ones for whom the trust fund was accumulated) are still alive. The "problem" from the DC perspective, IS that federal taxpayers will have to pay back the SS administration.

If the SSTF is "worthless IOU's" then insolvency is only a few years away and our full faith and credit don't mean shit. The latter is a catastrophic problem.

The 1983 tax hikes were predicated on the big perceived problem that in 2020 very few workers would be supporting lots of retirees. Time to dust off that logic again - let's make more workers.

2) repaying the SSTF would pay down the debt if anyone in DC had the stones to do what it takes to improve employment, and then raise taxes once that has occurred.

Putting people to work should be the first order of business. This can be paid for without depressing the economy, (an unimportant point) or borrowing, (an unimportant one) by raising taxes on capital gains for the wealthy. Investment churn doesn't contribute to employment.

Don't project your expectations. He's not getting his ass kicked. You simply don't know (and wouldn't approve) of the game he's actually playing.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/11/hawk-nation-a-guide-to-the-catastrophic-debt-ceiling-debate-51211/

[Safetykitten]

15. " I'm not sure what the issue 72% or Americans agreed on, but there it is." He's not sure.

[ljm2002]

16. It's killing me too...

...every time one of the Republicans intones "The American people want us to curb spending!", is an opportunity to say "What the American people really want is for the rich and the super rich to pay their fair share, for us to get out of the current prolonged wars, and to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." It has the advantage of being 100% true, and the percentages are impressive too. When it comes to political issues, it is not that often when you see poll results of 70% or higher, but we do see that when it comes to protecting Social Security. And yet, Obama and the Democrats fail to bring this up.

It almost makes you think they don't actually represent the American people.

[Robbins]

18. Well

Lawrence O'Donnell hit It on the head when he said what Obama Is really after.By Institing on rasing one trillion In Taxes on the
rich as part of deficit pachage he Is trying to get what he really wants.A simple rasing of the Debt Ceiling.He Is using the Obama
Snydrame against them.Obama wants a defecit reduction plan so they will soon be against it.Bohener has already come to the Idea that
the debt ceiling has to be raised.

[Armstead]

20. Welcome to Our World....This is the way many have been feeling all along

I guess people have different thresholds -- Or perhaps thresholds on different subjects.

In any case, many of have had similar frustrations throughout, during the grinding debates over healthcare, tax extensions for the rich, etc.