Krugman: "Obama is extraordinarily eager to make concessions."

[mod mom]

July 14, 2011, 7:55 AM
Obama, Moderate Republican

OK, not exactly. But Nate Silver’s analysis of the budget proposals is a must-read. Nate looks at polling, and extracts the following implied preferences for the mix between tax increases and spending cuts in a debt deal:


What Obama has offered — and Republicans have refused to accept — is a deal in which less than 20 percent of the deficit reduction comes from new revenues. This puts him slightly to the right of the average Republican voter.

So we learn two things. First, Obama is extraordinarily eager to make concessions. Second, Republicans are incredibly unwilling to take yes for an answer — something for which progressives should be grateful.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/obama-moderate-republican/

sigh...this is what we worked for?

[somone]

1. His reputation is well earned

[Enthusiast]

67. Krugman or Obama? nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

4. So the crazies can be in charge? That in itself is crazy. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

92. Not necessarilly so. The situation in the US is so fucked up on...

...so many levels that the least painful (in the long term) answer might be to give THEM their head in the hope that the populace will finally wake up. Because, FFS, they don't seem to have noticed anthing wrong yet.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Then what is your agenda for being here then?

[Doctor_J]

21. Probably to try to get the country back on a DEMOCRATIC path

of which cutting Medicare & SS are not parts.

[NNN0LHI]

32. Not voting will get America back on a DEMOCRATIC path?

[Doctor_J]

41. That wasn't your question

Your question was, 'what is your agenda here (at DU)?' Putting forth ideas and ideals that are more in line with FDR than Bush would qualify as returning the country to democratic path.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[vi5]

5. A very apt analogy...

I don't know the bible so I don't know if that's really how the story goes. But it looks like we're in a similar situation here.

[fascisthunter]

6. I Forgot about that

[msongs]

7. uh oh if u dare criticize Obama for endorsing repub policies you will be excoriated on DU lol nt

[KittyWampus]

25. "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to". The cluelessness involved in the OP commentary

leaves out the actual political dynamics.

[Marr]

36. edit--

oops, pardon me

[Ikonoklast]

43. I see many people here that have no clue as to how a negotiation proceeds.

They have never participated in one.

If they ever sat at a bargaining table with an employer, they might get a small inkling as to how things actually get done...the finished product looks NOTHING like what both parties had on the table during the negotiations.

[nxylas]

74. A real negotiaition or an Obama negotiation?

A real negotiation begins with both parties shooting for the moon and then gradually whittling away non-essentials until they reach a proposal that everyone can live with.

An Obama negotiation goes something like this:

Obama: Here's my proposa....
The Republicans: NO!
Obama: OK then, we'll do it your way.

[tomp]

47. everybody's missing something....

.....except you.

your attitude is shamefully grandiose.

[Hawkowl]

66. No, just deleted

Too harsh criticism of POLICY gets deleted now days :puke:

[ProSense]

8. Wonder how many of

these Republicans (chart from the OP):



...fell into this category: "Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!" (Krugman, April)

If they didn't want the President negotiating with assholes, they shouldn't have turned control of Congress over to Boehner and Cantor.

Pelosi on the President's handling of the current negotiations.

[Whiskeytide]

35. Post quote of the day?

"If they didn't want the President negotiating with assholes, they shouldn't have turned control of Congress over to Boehner and Cantor."

Priceless. Can I use that?

[tomp]

48. i don't know who's voting for all those spending cuts....

.....but they are assholes, to be sure.

LARGE tax increases on the super wealthy and restraint of imperialist war is the ONLY sensible answer to the problems we face right now.

obama is not for that by a long shot. fuck him and anyone who supports him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. That involves a bit of number guessing by Silver

From Silver's post:

We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/house-republicans-no-tax-stance-far-outside-political-mainstream/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Notice that 'assume'. The actual questions asked were about 'all cuts', 'mostly cuts', 'equal cuts and tax increases', 'mostly increases' and 'all increases'. But the 3-to-1 ratio that Silver then uses for his calculations was guessed at.

[Doctor_J]

19. The "average Republican voter" has ZERO chance of voting for Obama

so this is decidedly stupid.

[gateley]

10. Well, every President has to (or should!) but he didn't panic

on this, and it's got to be somewhat terrifying knowing that the opposition may indeed force a default. The repercussions would be severe.

I think he gives too much, too, but I'm not in his shoes and don't know all the goings on.

[Karmadillo]

11. It's not a concession if it's what you want in the first place.

nt

[mod mom]

13. there lies the essential problem.

:mad:

[kenny blankenship]

12. indeed. People are jumping up and down and clapping because Obama stood up to Cantor

But have they thought about WHAT HAPPENS if Obama gets what he wants? Cantor is holding out for a smaller deal in which there are only spending cuts, no tax increases. Obama wants a larger deal in which are tax increases BUT IN WHICH THERE ARE ALSO MUCH LARGER SPENDING CUTS. These cuts will come largely out of Medicare and Social Security, the family jewels of the Democratic Party.

The fantasy some people seem to fall into when they hear that Obama berated Eric Cantor and said he was at his limit, and so on, has the Republicans backing down at the 11th hour and passing a debt ceiling increase without any strings attached. That is not going to happen. And one big reason that is not going to happen is because Obama wants to make a "historic" deal which cuts TRILLIONS out vital Democratic social programs. He is still pressing for this 4 trillion dollar austerity package of "pain and sacrifice."

When you clap for Obama "walking out" on Cantor, "lighting him up", and yelling "enough is enough" THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. If Cantor gets slapped into line with the rest of the Republicans, you're actually clapping for Obama steamrolling the Republicans into making unprecedented cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

[ProSense]

14. People are only

supposed to jump up and down over reports that Boehner and Cantor are winning.

:bounce:

[somone]

16. An important point being overlooked by many

[Doctor_J]

20. Big media telling Obama how to"save his presidency"

that's pretty much how we got to this disastrous place to begin with.

[inna]

17. exactly. nt

[KittyWampus]

24. FFS, The Republican will not accept the deal with tax increases.

[kenny blankenship]

27. Many of them will. That is the deal Boehner AGREED 2. The Crazy Wing Cantor reps say they will not.

But Obama and the other Republicans are pressuring Cantor and the Tbaggers to take the Grand Bargain.

[Doctor_J]

31. Then SHUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY DOWN

For just once during this miserable presidency I would like to see him not cave in. Is that too much to ask?

[eilen]

54. But isn't it he who is proposing cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid? nt

[Marr]

40. I thought you said his brilliance was that he'd put the blame on Republicans.

So why does he need to give away the store to avoid a default?

Or was your most recent position that the Republican threat was and is empty, and the business community won't let them wreck the economy and Obama was brilliant for calling them on it? I have trouble keeping it straight.

For what it's worth, I've thought this threat was transparently empty from the beginning, and ANYONE pretending otherwise, offering cuts to SS/Medicare as a "compromise" was in on it. It's theater. Just a bunch of political cover.

[SusanaMontana41]

34. Oh, the irony ...

My mom and I were saying that very thing this morning.

[Hawkowl]

64. We're fucked no matter what

That was ordained the moment Obama turned the economy over to Goldman Sachs, i.e; Geithner & Summers.

[Enthusiast]

68. The moment Obama was inaugurated.

This was all planned.

[neoralme]

71. Kenny. I am not an Obama supporter anymore. I made the mistake

yesterday of becoming momentarily optimistic when Obama spoke harshly to Cantor. But you are right. Obama is the one that wants the the major cuts to SS and Medicare, which not only will devastate millions, it will send us into a deed depression for as many years as it takes to dissolve the country. Obama was hired by corporatists, who also own the Republican Party. He has an agenda. And that agenda makes him dangerous. Most people here get that. A few, and they are notorious, will never get it until this man has old people we all know living in the street. I have other thoughts but they are too controversial to post here. Your last sentence speaks volumes, and I now understand it to be true.

One question for you to consider: Why did McConnell come up with a device that allows Obama himself to make determination of what will be cut to raise the debt limit in a manner that almost cannot be voted down by Republicans? Doesn't this seem a little curious to you? Does McConnell know something and is not doing this simply as a backup plan to insure the debt limit increase? Maybe he knows he will get what he wants if Obama carries the ball.

[BigD_95]

82. ur wrong

Obama wants to look like he wants the major deal. He knows house Dems would never go along with it and he also knows Republicans would never vote to raise taxes on the rich.

So he will pass a small bill or a clean bill to raise the debt celling and the when he runs for reelection he can say he wanted to put everything on the table to lower the debt. The republicans wouldnt do it. He wanted to cut spending. Then Obama can say they wouldnt do it because they wouldnt stop loop holes for the rich and tax jets. The republicans the have to defend oil companies and private jet owners. He basically will be taking the debt talks off the table during the election. The topic Republicans have been using for years now.

explain how they will be able to attack him? Obama has play a amazing job of politics. If they say they wanted to cut sending. Obama can say he wanted to put through the biggest spending cut ever. He has them ever which way.

[neoralme]

85. Not much sense discussing it. On the surface your final paragraph

explanation that puts the Republicans in an Obama checkmate is the one most easily accepted. I was leaning that way myself for a short time. However, with Obama having originally appointed the Catfood Commission and also the temporary(not really) reduction in SS witholding to employees, it is he who has made the first strikes against these precious Democratic programs. So, no, I don't agree with your analysis. I believe ending SS and Medicare was an assignment given to Obama, which he is struggling to complete. We will know shortly who is right. I hope it is you.

[tallahasseedem]

18. Krugman seems to be extraordinarily wrong...

all the time.

[fascisthunter]

23. Um... I gonna have to say the opposite... he's been right more than wrong

[Karmadillo]

26. Stick it to Krugman! Post the links that back up your claim! Get 'em!

nt

[tomp]

49. wow, one of the lamer comments i've read lately.

i love you creeps who who are willing to assert baldly that people who are recognized experts in their field are just so wrong. and say nothing else. way to take yourself look idiotic.

you've got it all figured out, i'm sure.

[eilen]

55. I was wondering who would be next in line for the 2 min. hate. nt

[Telly Savalas]

60. Oh come now. I'm about as dumb a motherfucker as you'll find around here

and I'd say Krugman is right most of the time, and even when he's wrong he provokes thoughtful discussion.

I would however argue that this is one of his weaker points. Comparing the proposal of a person who's studied the numbers closely and is engaged enough with other stakeholders to know what the constraints are with the gut reactions of the public who may have caught 2 minutes of coverage of this on the news is an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not necessarily arguing that Obama's strategy is correct, I'm just saying the comparison Krugman is making is meaningless.

[Bluebear]

63. Show us where he is wrong 'all the time'. Back up the big talk.

[Hawkowl]

65. Yeah, that's why they gave him a Nobel Prize

So I see where you get that notion from. I mean Obama got the Nobel Peace prize and we just keep bombing the shit out of more and more countries every day. So clearly, the Nobel prize is for doing the opposite.

[neoralme]

72. The man is rarely wrong.

[KittyWampus]

22. Obama is intentionally APPEARING to go to the extreme right. He ends up forcing their hand.

The inability of Krugman and so many on DU to grasp this simple strategy is bizarre.

[amborin]

28. glad you admit "Obama is intentionally going to the extreme right"; so, when he cuts a right wng dea

l, in which sacred programs such as soc sec and medicare are "adjusted" ---for no good reason other than wanting to end progressive programs, since soc security really has no problems and is unrelated to the current "deficit" and "debt" issues---he will look "reasonable"

[Doctor_J]

30. Yeah, the apologists have gone completely over the edge

Imagine if George Bush had proposed raising taxes on billionaires to pre-Reagan levels, to "force the Dems' hand". He would have been run out of office by the Repukes. NOw the situation is reversed, and self-identified Dems are fucking cheering. I would say it's disgusting, by I passed disgust long ago.

[Inuca]

44. Stop being so short-sighted

Yes, SS by all (trustworthy) accounts is not related to the current deficit. But do you honestly think that there no problems for it down the road as fewer and fewer people contribute and more and more take money out? It's the same irrationality of the "we can continue to make payments though we will run out of money" statements that come from the right.And Medicare's problems are not in the future, they are NOW. So yes, adjustments ARE needed, though probably not right now, it's probably NOT a good idea to make them under these circusmstances. WHAT adjustments is the main issue, and I have no idea what a good answer would be. But saying that considering adjustments is going to the extreme right is the same as saying that considering any tax increase makes one a communist (or a fascist, you chose :-)).

[amborin]

51. attacking wage stagnation and inequality would help Soc Sec, otherwise it does NOT need "adjustments

please educate yourself;

making "adjustments" to Soc Sec is the rethugs' major goal


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html


http://epi.3cdn.net/6b8be14ba47a517a97_uym6b5jbh.pdf

[Inuca]

73. Is raising the cap a republican goal?

That would be an adjustment, and a most welcome one.

[amborin]

56. and, please read this:

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/15/a-brief-history-of-attacks-on-social-security-12412/


i really do hope you will read up on Social Security; it's in great shape, and needs no "adjustments"

and, your statement that, "saying that considering adjustments is going to the extreme right is the same as saying that considering any tax increase makes one a communist (or a fascist, you chose)" is blatantly false; if you understand the Social Security program, including its funding basis, and understand the history of right-wing attacks on it, both blatant and disguised, you'll realize that talk of "adjustments" is, indeed, going to the extreme right.

[eridani]

58. By that idiotic reasoning, we are all starving to death because an increasingly smaller % of farmers

--has to feed a growing population of dependent urbanites. How can anyone look at current unemployment and and underemployment and say with a straight face that our main problem is too few people in the work force? There are NO problems with Social Security that can't be fixed by raising the FICA cap.

The problems with Medicare are the problems of our health care system as a whole, in which there are no cost controls. None were imposed with reform, either, except on sick people. If our per capita costs were the same as in other developed countries, Medicare would be solvent into infinity.

[Inuca]

75. Agree with what you are saying except

that the analogy with farming does not hold. Farming is much more efficient now than it used to be. You could raise the "efficiency" of SS contributions by raising the cap, I am all for it. It may solve the problem, at least for a (long?) while. There is still the fact of the aging population, and I do not only mean baby boomers who will eventually fade out. But we do live longer on an avergae. It's a problem, if you can call it that, faced by all advanced countries. As to Medicare, again, I agree. The fundamentals of the system are rotten. I was not implying that benefits should be cut, but that the system should be adjusted.

[eridani]

93. Productivity has increased by manyfold in the non-farm sector as well

Workers have not had a piece of it, however. Give us our share, and SocSec is solvent indefinitly.

[Doctor_J]

29. So Obama moving to the extreme right is a GOOD thing?

Holy shit, DU has completely jumped the shark.

[amborin]

33. so you edited out your original statement! by adding "appearing"

unfortunately, it doesn't change anything

what we have is a case of a "democratic" president openly adopting and arguing extreme right wing positions

that this could be lauded, under any scenario, defies belief

Obama is not forcing anyone's hand

what he is doing is publicly stating his willingness to sacrifice sacred progressive programs ---at great cost and pain to the beneficiaries of these programs, and which programs have NOTHING to do with any "debt" or "deficit"-----

it's only b/c rethugs wanted even more extreme tea party goals that they turned down his pleas to accept his "deal"

UNREAL! that people don't seem to see what is happening here

please understand that this "debt" crisis is bogus

check out bond and securities prices....if there were even a glimmer of truth to this "crisis," those prices would be tanking

those who work in econ and finance, and who are directly affected, know this is a non-issue

the masses have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker

[girl gone mad]

38. Well said.

It certainly looks like Obama is desperate to get this deal, and one must wonder why.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. Yup. One has to look no further than the yield on the 10 treasury bond

Less than 3%!!

There is no crisis.

[woo me with science]

79. +1 nt

[Marr]

39. Uh-huh. Sure. More "rope a dope", you say.

If you still assert that cuts to Social Security/Medicare benefits aren't sincere offers, I think you need to recast both the rope and the dope.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

59. So you think Obama is representing a right wing position in the debt ceiling talks?

Thanks for the clarification.

Jeez!

[inna]

80. Fucking Absolutely Fucking Hilarious. Thanks for that.

[loyalsister]

37. The tyranny of words....

When we see words like implied, assume, if, seems, possibly, should, could etc... I think skeptical interpretations are appropriate. Words that convey "possibility" represent the loftiest of language.
Extrapolations and potential results are not concrete facts or results. I think opinions should be clearly presented and understood as hypotheticals and possibilities honestly.

Of course, this is an opinion in itself and can be legitimately rejected. I just think that some of these opinion pieces present their arguments from an unearned objective authoritarian perspective. I think critical reading reveals the vague language that I hope would convey a quality of "maybe" and opinion that includes biases.
Sorry, for the rant but I see this often with Krugman and I find it frustrating because his opinion is so often presented as an authority.

[Renew Deal]

42. The second thing might be Obama's point.

Which is also Lawrence O'Donnels point. Obama figured out the republicans wouldn't accept any deal, so he just played them along.

[TheKentuckian]

52. They may not accept a deal right now but from now on, the entire debate is on their terms

Now that the "Marxist", "Socialist", "mostest leftist President...EVAH" has preached the need to cut benefits and raise the age how does the conversation ever come back to our terms?

This is a long range debacle and it will result in cuts because Obama wants them or he wouldn't keep flogging this bullshit along.

How do we get Medicare for all when the the debate is entirely cuts and to privatize or not. We need to LOWER the retirement age badly, how do you get there from raising the age, "trimming" benefits, and means testing (aka to privatize or not)?

If the guy with the football is running toward the wrong goal line, why on earth would I be cheering his juke moves and raw speed? Scrambling around deeper and deeper in the backfield may make the highlight reels but 999/1,000 that exciting action leads to a huge loss and results in a turnover way more often than a touchdown.

He has ceded the debate for no good reason and now matters are worse since he has convinced a not insignificant number of Democrats to eat their peas with gusto and Christmas like cheer.

[Enthusiast]

69. Excellent post.

[neoralme]

77. Simply excellent. We were sold out long ago and the goal

posts have simply been moved beyond our ability to actually score. See my post #71.

[Doctor_J]

45. Hilarious comment

Obama has proved himself the most effective Republican president since Ronald Reagan.
When most Republicans were beating their heads against the stone wall of Medicare and Social Security, he figured out a way to dislodge a stone here, a stone there -- weakening their foundations.
He understood that the best way to keep wages low and allow business profits to soar was to make sure that there were millions of desperate disemployed workers who were anxious for a job at any wages. So he pursued an economic program to prop up Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Coal, while keeping millions jobless.
He patted labor unions on the head while kicking their legs out from under them. What more Republican policy could he possibly have pursued?
For a fuller analysis along these lines, see www.theshalomcenter.org
Shalom, Rabbi Arthur Waskow

Bravo, Rabbi

[emilyg]

46. +1

[Politicub]

53. I love Krugman, but sometimes he's quite useless

Everyone has an off day now and then.

[joshcryer]

57. Taxes are the teabaggers sacred cow, they wouldn't go for it if we privitized social security...

...abolished medicare, etc, etc.

[chill_wind]

62. So the bargaining chip of screwing over retirees, the sick and the elderly

wasn't something he was just going to give away for free.

Well thank god for that!

:sarcasm:

:nuke:

[pam4water]

70. K&R

[florida08]

76. I really don't understand this

Who are the democrats the prefer cuts to revenue increases? If you're here please explain to me why you would cut seniors safety net over reclaiming revenue. In the Reagan era the top 2% earned 8 trllion of the wealth..now its 40 trillion. I thought that 80% of the voters didn't want medicare of ss touched..so what's with this poll?

[Pholus]

78. The polled cuts are "unspecified." People get less willing when the cut gets specific.

That's how it usually seems to work anyway.

[florida08]

87. no kidding

but isn't it a bit naive to vote for something without the specifics? :hi: Maybe specifics will come today. Obama new conference at 11 am.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. There are cuts, and there are cuts.

I, for one, would be very happy with a 50% cut in military expenditures. Close down the overseas bases, pull out of the middle east wars, cut the military by half. The savings would more than compensate for the 2 million newly unemployed, particularly if those two million discharged are given grants out of those savings to go to school, start businesses, etc.

That's some cuts I could live with.

[sulphurdunn]

81. Would repealing corporate

tax loopholes and subsidies count as tax increases or deficit reductions? It matters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. tax loopholes at tax increases; subsidies as cuts. nt

[VeryConfused]

83. I have to give Paul credit. He doesn't let the fact that he was proven wrong

stop him from charging forward on the same course.

[inna]

84. gotta compliment you on the unusually fitting screen name

:thumbsup:

[florida08]

86. hehe

:spray:

[VeryConfused]

91. I have to complement you on your originality and creativity

or maybe I don't

[Vattel]

90. Everyting I have read about what Obama had on the table

suggests that it would have been a disaster (judged by traditional Democratic Party values) had the Republicans accepted it. If he wasn't bluffing he is even further to the right than I thought. That being said, I can't be certain that he wasn't bluffing.