Obama's desperation

[kentuck]

"It's the economy stupid", as someone once noted. Presidents do not usually get re-elected with the unemployment rate as high as it is right now. FDR was able to do it, but believe me, Barack Obama is no FDR.

The Repubs have blocked his every attempt to do something to jumpstart the economy. They will buy nothing he is selling. He has become a desperate politician. He must find a way to get the unemployment rate to start falling, at least giving the appearance of an improving economy, before the next election.

That is why he is showing his post-partisanship. It is no longer about the Democratic Party or politics as usual. It is about Barack Obama and whether he can win re-election. He believes in the power of taxcuts because Repubs will not approve of anything else. It is doubtful they will approve of the taxcuts for businesses and for working folks if they think it will help Obama in any way.


If the unemployment rate does not go down, he knows the odds are stacked against him winning re-election. He is trying to do everything conceivable to create jobs. Unfortunately, the Repubs will not cooperate. So, if he offers to cut SS for them, how can they resist?

But, it might actually stimulate the economy enough to create some jobs and bring down the unemployment rate just enough to look like some progress is being made and convince folks to re-elect him? It is a tough choice for Republicans. It is an act of desperation for Barack Obama and Democrats should not go along with it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. My dear kentuck...

I am surprised at you.

I watched him speak and he sure as heck did not look desperate to me.

He looked stern, almost angry.

He is showing us what intransigent fools they are.

In fact, I feel more strongly than ever (esp. when you consider who will be running against him!) that he will prevail.

I do not like what he's doing to the tax rate that goes to feed Social Security, but I do like the rest.

[ashling]

13. He looked stern, almost angry.

Unfortunately, we've seen that look often. ... and, as much as I hate to say it, usually before he gave up on something like the public option. I hope he will stay angry. God I hope he will. Because though he may not be desperate, this country is.

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

14. You like more free trade agreements and a wage destroying work program that gives

capital free labor?

Down with cutting Medicare more as access becomes ever more difficult?

You think tax cuts will stimulate hiring in any serious fashion?

I think folks are caught up in emotion. The lift of a brilliant orator and the fear of the opposition work to make what we have fought for years seem palatable in quick fashion but one day the minds will engage again and hands will be wrung when the realization comes that we cheer our own undoing when we should know better but let go of will, purpose, and principle in exuberance for rhetoric and cowering from our enemies least they whip us again.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. Nope, I don't like any of those things either.

You've got me all wrong.

I should have said I like most of what he said, OK?

He gives a damn good speech, but that doesn't matter.

In spite of the things he wants that we don't, he is still better as president than any of them. ANY.

[ProSense]

3. Here are

two pieces worth reading:

Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy


GOP Reps. Dismiss Tax Cut For Working Americans In Favor Of Giveaways To Corporations


"The Repubs have blocked his every attempt to do something to jumpstart the economy. They will buy nothing he is selling. He has become a desperate politician. "

The President is desperate because Republicans are assholes?

[kentuck]

7. I can't disagree with that...

I am only disappointed that the President can think of nothing but conservative solutions... and the Repubs don't want to buy that if it means Barack Obama may get re-elected.

[teddy51]

4. The obvious thing that comes to mind by not re-electing Obama is the

horror of one of those loons on the other side of the isle occupying the WH.

If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, nothing will.

[kentuck]

8. This assumes that the President's actions will get him re-elected...

I would not agree with that.

[teddy51]

10. Thats very true, and even scarier than my scenario. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

Under a President Romney, I am confident we will see the U2 unemployment

rate reach 25% (like January 1933). People have no idea what's in store when a depression (shrinkage of GDP by more than 10%) sets in and most folks' grandparents and parents who lived through the Great Depression have passed.

[readmoreoften]

27. It's like choosing between whether you want an ant or a bowling ball to plug a hole

that's the size of an elephant in the hull of a sinking ship. One is better; both will kill us.

[Skittles]

30. why can't we have someone to vote FOR?

is that too much to ask???????

[ThomWV]

5. That a very reasonable interpretation of what Obama faces

And by the way, my Recommend didn't bring it up to zero. You must have really pissed someone off today. Bawahahahahahaha. Who cares, right?

[Horse with no Name]

6. Mine either....

[ashling]

11. But mine did

took him to +1

[sabrina 1]

16. Must be lots of unrecs because mine did not register either.

It's a shame because there are some serious reasons to be concerned about what is about to happen with the President's proposal. His speech was good, but he has already given away too much before the debate even starts. And Republicans ARE going to demand MORE.

Someone please tell this president that you start out from giving NOTHING because you know you will have to give something. But make THEM be the ones to try to win YOU over. Don't start out offering what they have not yet even asked for, or you are basically telling them 'here, I'll GIVE you this, and I'm willing to give MORE'. It is foolish to start out that way.

[sabrina 1]

9. He doesn't need to be desperate though.

He needs to focus, not on reelection, but on the American people's needs. He can do that by NOT caving to Republican demands, because as you point out, they want him gone so are unlikely to agree even to things he is willing to do just to appease them, such as cutting the funding to the SS fund.

He has apparently not learned that the Republicans can hang on for another year, or so they think and are right now deciding which will work best for them, to appear to be willing to accept some of his proposals, or to reject them outright.

This is what I think they will do. They learned from the debt ceiling debate that being completely unwilling to at least appear to be reasonable, was playing a politically dangerous game. So, I think they will say they are in agreement with SOME of his proposals, but must have a debate about the rest.

They could drag this out claiming that HE is the one who is refusing to back down until the election.

The President meantime, has made a huge mistake by adding anything they 'want' to the proposals. Again, he is now going to be bargaining from a weak position and will have to give them MORE to get an agreement.

He has also risked angering his own supporters.

What he should have done was to give them NOTHING. No cuts to payroll taxes, eg. No way should that have been the starting line for this proposal. He has probably lost votes from that alone.

He should have made the proposals everything his supporters wanted, and then bargain from that point. Knowing their position, knowing that they are in a very weak position to refuse to agree to create jobs, was a perfect time to stop catering to them.

He is on the way to losing on two counts, giving them more, and losing support from his own potential voters. He should know by now that SS is not the way to keep what is tenuous support at best.

It makes you wonder 'who is advising this President'? They need to be fired.

[kentuck]

12. Bingo!

Thank you sabrina.

[ThomWV]

15. If it were possible to give a response a Recommend I'd give you one too.

[bbgrunt]

25. yes. at this point it seems all about his ego rather than the good

of the country or the furtherance of the Democratic agenda or party. Even though he claimed to be willing to be a one-termer, at this point it's obvious that is not the case.

[ibegurpard]

29. absolutely right

[DevonRex]

18. He's pissed off, not desperate. And I'm pissed off, too. Nt

[emilyg]

19. k

[elocs]

20. "Barack Obama is no FDR". Why do you hate our President?

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

21. Except that nothing can be more important for Democrats than re-electing Obama.

Presidential elections are not games. Their results do not just decide the membership of one branch -- they decide the membership of two. A Republican win in 2012 could usher in justices that believe much of progressive policy (currently enacted or on our wish list) is unconstitutional, and those rulings could stick for 30 years (as they did the last time this happened in the early 20th century).

[Major Hogwash]

22. Considering what the GOP has to offer this time, I would say you are 100% accurate.

There is no way we can afford to have a President Perry or a President Romney pick Supreme Court Justices.

And that is the bottom line.

[YellowCosmicSun]

23. Are you frustrated?

[madrchsod]

24. it`s beginning to look like he was`t ready for prime time.

[Larkspur]

26. Obama is closer to Grover Cleveland than FDR

Cleveland was a pro-banker Democrat. It took the Democratic Party about 30+ years to recover from his policies.

[blkmusclmachine]

28. 11 Dimensional Chess has been an abyssmal FAILURE:

It's gone so wrong, so often it can't be anything other than "by design."