Krugman: The President Is A Lousy Negotiator

[n2doc]

Steve Benen and Ezra Klein both point out that by negotiating with himself, Obama seems to have ensured that the eventual budget “compromise” will give Republicans more than they ever imagined in the way of harsh cuts.

Maybe this is just political realism. But the way I see it, Obama adopted Republican framing of the budget debate — including the rhetoric about how families are tightening their belts so the government should too — as early as the 2010 State of the Union, back when Democrats had 59 Senate seats and control of the House. If that genuflection to the right was supposed to help Dems in the midterms, well, it didn’t; and it has meant that there is no effective counter-argument to the cut cut cut people.

So, can we now count on Obama, at least, not to preemptively surrender to the right by proposing Social Security cuts — cuts that we know will be a starting point, not an end to the discussion?

No, we can’t.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/the-president-is-a-lousy-negotiator/

[Vincardog]

1. Bingo got it in one

[Autumn]

2. He's been a damn good negotiator for

the republicans.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Wrong. Yeah, we saw how many Republicans voted for HCR and Wall Street reform, didn't we?

:sarcasm:

[Autumn]

15. Wrong. Yeah, we saw how well he negotiated for tax breaks,

didn't we?

[ClarkUSA]

36. You mean when Republicans refused to extend UI and approve a second stimulus?

Yeah, I did. And I approve of what he did:

John Harwood just set the record straight to Cenk Uygur.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 03:31 PM by jenmito

Cenk was accusing Obama of not listening to Progressives. John "pointed out" that Obama wanted a vote even BEFORE the election which would've extended the tax cuts for the middle class and let those for the rich expire, but those in his own party didn't buy it (his constant campaigning on this), wouldn't bring it up for a vote in the Senate, and they're still against it.

He simply DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES to pass an extension of tax cuts for the middle class only, so he's trying for the best he CAN get-permanent tax cuts for the middle class and a temporary tax cut for the rich.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=522973&mesg_id=522973

Some people would rather stick it to the rich than stand up for the poor, though... I'm glad Pres. Obama stood up for the unemployed poor and the economic recovery in the face of GOP obstructionism.

[hfojvt]

53. he did the best he could eh?

so a 98% victory for Republicans was the best we could get. I guess "yes we can" meant "yes we can lose"

And you are on this thread arguing that Obama giving Republicans 98% of what they wanted does not make Obama a bad negotiator.

Once again, I feel like apologizing to Hillary supporters.

I am so glad Obama stood up for the poor by giving a tax cut to the rich :crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

60. Against GOP obstructionism? Yes. But I'm sure you feel you could have done better.

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

75. yes, I would have at least gone down swinging

instead of wetting my pants, waving a white flag, and then attacking my allies and claiming a surrender is some sort of victory.

[cui bono]

79. +1

Geez some people can't see the truth no matter what. So sad.

[DJ13]

26. The Republicans didnt have to vote for it

They got everything they wanted (the criticisms by them are a smokescreen) without needing to put themselves on record in support.

Thats the best outcome they could have hoped for.

The HCR was an early 90's REPUBLICAN bill, and the Wall St 'reform' was merely window dressing to hide the continuation of the rape of the general public by the bankers (also a GOP goal).

It couldnt have come out better for them if Obama was a registered Republican President.

[ClarkUSA]

37. lol! What garbage. Is that why Republicans want to repeal HCR?

[DJ13]

39. Garbage? Try looking it up for yourself

Today marks the first anniversary of – ‘Chafeecare’

March 23rd, 2011

A year ago today, President Obama signed the late U.S. Sen. John Chafee’s health care reform plan into law.

Sure, most people know the legislation as the Affordable Care Act – or, in less supportive circles, “Obamacare.” But when you get away from all the partisan bickering over the law, its actual nuts and bolts bare a striking similarity to the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, which the Rhode Island Republican proposed during the heat of President Clinton’s fight over health policy.

Don’t believe me? Check out this Kaiser Health News chart comparing John Chafee bill’s with competing Republican and Democratic proposals from 2009. As Kaiser’s Maggie Mertens pointed out in a February 2010 interview with one of Chafee’s co-sponsors, former Sen. Dave Durenberger of Minnesota:

In fact, the key provisions in the Chafee bill may seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to those in the current Democratic Senate bill, and now in President Barack Obama’s proposal. A mandate that individuals buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to buy insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill.

Durenberger says the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by today’s Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. “The main thing that’s changed is the definition of a Republican,” he said.


http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/03/23/today-marks-the-first-anniversary-of-chafeecare/

[ClarkUSA]

43. Yes, you said that they didn't vote for HCR because they got what they wanted anyway.

I just proved you wrong and you can't admit it. After all, if Republicans had gotten everything they wanted, why would they want to repeal it?

Here are more facts for you:

"Pre-existing Condition? Now, a Health Policy May Not Be Impossible"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/health/19patient.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

"Obama Puts Public Option & Single Payer Back On The Table"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530578

[DJ13]

46. why would they want to repeal it?

They only want to repeal the parts that cost their benefactors any money.

Most of the HCR they actually love, as it creates a permanent stream of profits to the insurance companies.

I would have thought that even you might know that even if you gave the GOP 99% of everything they want they will never admit they are happy......until they achieve 100%, and even then they'll still complain.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Ask them. Republican freshmen campaigned on this notion last year and won the teabagger faithful.

<< They only want to repeal the parts that cost their benefactors any money.

Most of the HCR they actually love, as it creates a permanent stream of profits to the insurance companies. >>

Really? Prove it.

[DJ13]

59. Really? Prove it

Whats their to prove?

GOP=Corporations=Love of profits

Tell you what, why dont you prove Republicans really hate the increased profits that will be going to the insurers.

[ClarkUSA]

62. "Most of the HCR they actually love" ROFL! All you have are words with zero proof.

[DJ13]

63. Ditto

[ClarkUSA]

68. That's false. I have offered named credible sources which you promptly ignored.

Also, it's a matter of public record that Republicans want to repeal HCR, which belies your erroneous claim that they got everything they wanted.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[abelenkpe]

42. Republicans say they want to repeal HCR

because they want to undermine everything that appears to be an accomplishment by a democratic president. That's all.

HCR is still a republican plan that doesn't go far enough. Only time will tell if it is a real improvement that is expanded on and strengthened or a failure that is de-funded and weakened.

The fight is never over and fighting with other liberals about it is counter productive. You should acknowledge the weaknesses that your fellows see and work with them to help strengthen HRC.

[ClarkUSA]

44. I agree with your first sentence and disagree with your second.

Beyond being merely contrarian, Republicans want to repeal HCR because of these two facts (especially the second, which they were afraid would happen after HCR was passed):

"Pre-existing Condition? Now, a Health Policy May Not Be Impossible"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/health/19patient.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

"Obama Puts Public Option & Single Payer Back On The Table"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530578

[abelenkpe]

69. They should be afraid of number two

CA would love single payer. And that would be an improvement. But my whole point is we still need to fight for those improvements.

That article on pre-existing conditions is kinda depressing as it outlines how crazy difficult it is to qualify for currently.

[cui bono]

77. He tried his damnedest to get their votes though. Secret back door deals with big pharma...

Threw out the public option... didn't fight back on death panel talk, instead softened language iirc... added some bogus abortion bs...

The Republicans wouldn't have voted for it no matter what so your argument holds no water. It was already a Republican bill, but since their hatred of a black man in office is greater than their wanting to give him any credit for anything they still wouldn't vote for it. It is basically the Bob Dole plan and also almost identical to Romney's plan.

[cui bono]

78. dupe

:hi:

[CreekDog]

3. i hope that helps him when all those cuts slow the economic recovery

because whatever political points he's getting by going along with this --they won't matter if unemployment is still almost as high as now when he hopes to be reelected.

he liked George Bush Sr.? i'm not sure it's a good idea to emulate him in all ways. :eyes:

[tblue37]

7. Bush senior pushed to raised taxes.

Obama should push to raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

[sad sally]

73. You dreamer, you. Believe the push is to LOWER corporate taxes,

so they can be more competitive (did you watch 60 Minutes last night?)

[n2doc]

8. Hell at least Bush sr. raised taxes

So did Ronnie, after a while. I have yet to see Obama push for this, although I am beginning to suspect that he will raise taxes, but only those that affect the "little people"

[gratuitous]

4. How can you say that?

If he gets everything he wants, isn't that effective negotiation, by definition? The error is in people thinking that what President Obama wants is substantially different from what the Republicans are demanding. When the only argument is whether the table is square or round, the same number of seats is going to fit around each one. And no, you and I don't have a seat at the table regardless of its shape.

[tularetom]

21. You have put your finger precisely on the problem

What the President wants is NOT substantially different from what the republicans are demanding. And that's exactly where the problem lies. I voted for him because I inferred from his campaign rhetoric that he wanted something way different from what republicans would demand.

[Angry Dragon]

28. It is our damn table

Who at the table is fighting for the people??

[Arctic Dave]

5. Duh.

[truebrit71]

6. Well yeah, and water is wet...

..He seems to be demonstrating the difference between 'book smarts' and 'street smarts'. The first one he has by the boatload, the second one, apparently not so much..

For all the talk of not bringing a knife to a gunfight, I don't think he's even opened his cutlery drawer...

[hifiguy]

13. Beat me to it! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

9. That became apparent on Jan 23, 2009

[ClarkUSA]

10. As if Krugman and Obama's critics can do better? No way. It's easy to complain, though.

Here's why-->

"Harry Reid: Tea Party Has Derailed Budget Negotiations"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4790709

[n2doc]

18. He wasn't given the chance

Obama was. And Obama didn't choose to fight. So your argument is worthless.

A true leader leads. He doesn't let others make excuses. We already know from Obama's own words that he will compromise before negotiations even start. But as someone up above noted, that's really what he wants. It is not his fault that he isn't the progressive leader we projected him to be. He has chosen to be a right leaning centrist. What people would have called a Republican back in the 1970's.

[Enthusiast]

22. Agreeing to social security cuts

would damage the Democratic Party for now and forever.

There would simply be no excuse for ever doing this. But Obama betrayed his true nature when he appointed the deficit commission in the first place.

And what did the FICA cuts accomplish? It served the unreasonable deficit hawks well by giving them a talking point.

This is just a replay of extending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama plans to betray us again and use Republican pressure as an excuse. This time there is no excuse. We aren't buying it.

[ClarkUSA]

29. When did he do that? Quote the budget agreements that prove that happened.

You've already said you're not voting for him, so I'm not going to waste my time dialoguing with someone who complains about Pres. Obama unfairly but gives up a vote to Republicans willingly.

[CreekDog]

27. kinda sad that you think this is the best negotiating Obama can do

that this is your affirmative defense of him...i'm not sure that actually helps him.

:eyes:

[n2doc]

30. It's actually worse- they are arguing that it was the best ANYONE could do

So those all powerful republicans were actually beaten by Obama since there is no way anyone in the world could have done better against that foe. Or so goes the logic. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

31. *dupe*

[CreekDog]

34. "dupe" --what an ironic error

:rofl:

[cui bono]

80. LMAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

32. Politifact.com has 134 instances where he has been a clear alternative to the RW whackos thus far.

Those are the facts. I feel good about them.

[Newest Reality]

12. I really would like to see any politician who endorses and

fights for cuts and austerity for the masses, specifically illustrate why raising taxes for the wealthy and corporations while decreasing or eliminating subsidies, is not the most immediate and beneficial solution to budget issues.

By not taxing appropriately, we give little incentive to move the vast sums of cash that the deadbeat rich, and the corporate veils they hide behind, into productive, active channels that could create jobs, etc.

There are too many incentives, both political and control-oriented, to do play the austerity game, but I would caution that the impending results to the population-at-large will be very negative and potentially catastrophic. Who will pay for that outcome?

[yurbud]

16. I wish those anonymous hackers would figure out how to expropriate or liquidate those hidden

assets.

or at least expose them down to the nickel a la Wikileaks.

[yurbud]

14. he has followed the script of having a minority in both chambers even when he had majorities

in both.

Like most of the top Democrats, he seems entirely content to play the Washington Generals to the GOP's Globetrotters.

[ProSense]

17. Republicans Prepare To Reject Final White House Budget Offer

Republicans Prepare To Reject Final White House Budget Offer

Brian Beutler

It's been almost a week since House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the White House last sat down to hammer out a budget agreement, and the schedule's still blank. Accusations of bad faith are now flying from both sides. Republicans are poised to reject a White House offer, TPM has learned, that would cut over $30 billion in current spending because of disagreements over whether the package should include cuts to mandatory spending programs. Democrats are pushing for such cuts, which include the big entitlement programs, though the specific cuts they're proposing remain unclear. In an ironic twist, Republicans oppose those cuts and want to limit the negotiations to non-defense discretionary spending, a smaller subset of the federal budget.

<...>

Late update: To put a finer point on all this, Harry Reid issued a statement this afternoon saying the negotiations aren't going anywhere.

I am extremely disappointed that after weeks of productive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, Tea Party Republicans are scrapping all the progress we have made and threatening to shut down the government if they do not get all of their extreme demands. The division between the Tea Party and mainstream Republicans is preventing us from reaching a responsible solution on a long-term budget that will make smart cuts while protecting American jobs, and prevented negotiations from taking place over the weekend even as the clock ticks toward a government shutdown. Apparently these extremists would rather shut down the government and risk sending our economy back into a recession than work with Democrats or even their own leadership to find a responsible compromise.
"For the sake of our economy, it's time for mainstream Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party and rejoin Democrats at the table to negotiate a responsible solution that cuts spending while protecting jobs.

The $30 billion in cuts were among those already proposed by the administration. Democrats are simply rolling them out during the negotiations. Republicans are now having to reject cuts because they aren't the disastrous cuts they're seeking.

Will the GOP go so far as to cause a shutdown?

[n2doc]

19. At this point let 'em, get it over with.

I worry that Obama won't be able to convince people that it s the repubs fault, though, given the MSM and Obama's own lack of leadership in this area.

[Godhumor]

20. I love that Obama has not proposed, accepted or endorsed social security cuts

But everyone just keeps assumes he is going to (He didn't do it at the State of the Union? Well, what about now? No? OK, how about later?).

Pre-emptive blame, gotta love it.

[Enthusiast]

23. They have to build up the big excuse first.

If you haven't noticed social security is always portrayed in the media as the very first cause of the deficit. Well, there is a reason for that.

[Godhumor]

25. Obama's administration publically said Social Secuirty is not a cause of the deficit

And that he has no intention of touching it.

[Enthusiast]

47. We will see how that works out for us. nt

[Godhumor]

49. Back to my point: pre-emptive blame

He hasn't done it yet, he hasn't made any indication he will do it, so, therefore, he's going to do it in the future.

If he does it everyone is going to scream. If he does not they're just going to say he'll do it later.

[Enthusiast]

65. Actually Obama is responsible

for cuts in cola. So he has already made cuts.

[Godhumor]

66. No, he has not cut SS. Trying to use COLA as an example is disingenuous

COLA was not cut--there was just no new COLA for 2011 as the CPI index it is linked to has not changed. But all benefits stay the same.

[bvar22]

70. No. But he has hammered in the first coffin nail...

...with the "One Year Payroll Tax Holiday",
to be made up for with tax money from the General Fund.

NOW, Obama has directly tied Social Security to budget shortcomings.
(in case you were wondering WHY "they" didn't just pay for a direct one year tax cut straight from General Fund.)

I will also like to see the reaction when Obama keeps his promise,
and Raises Taxes in an election year.

[jtown1123]

38. Well, he does say "everything is on the table." And he opposes "slashing" benefits but never defined

what a slash means. Does he believe raising the retirement age is wrong? Means testing? We know what his economic advisors think about SS and that is why we are all terrified.

[Godhumor]

40. He has stated many times that Social Security benefits are not on the table n/t

[Better Believe It]

24. It's not that Obama is just a lousy negotiator. He's utilizing his skills at community organizing

Organizing and leading the business community.

And Obama honestly supports big cuts in social programs in order to finance tax breaks for his class.

Why do some well intentioned people have such difficulty understanding that?

[DirkGently]

33. "adopoting the framing ..." Well, ma'am, there's your problem right there.

[xchrom]

35. Recommend

[unblock]

45. he is not a lousy negotiator. he is not a negotiator at all.

he's not even trying to stake out a position and pull people toward it, then concede points or not concede points in order to reach an acceptable deal. that's what a negotiator does, but that's not what obama does.

obama feels around for where the middle of the power lies, then tries to get enough power on the same page in order to get a deal done. he doesn't really seem to care much about the nature of the deal, he just wants to get the deal done.

that's what a concensus-builder does, not a negotiator, and that's what obama is.

[democracy1st]

48. This is what Obama wants he's not even concerned about negotiations!

[gracchorumspes]

51. Negotiating...

The key is to not lose your house for a hill of beans!

[ClarkUSA]

52. Chicken Little Krugman was against HCR before he was for it, too. Guess his crystal ball is no good.

"KRUGMAN on HCR: "This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7903672

Also, Krugman doesn't get it:

"Krugman and others missed the point. The $30 billion in cuts were among those already proposed by the administration. Democrats are simply rolling them out during the negotiations. Republicans are now having to reject cuts because they aren't the disastrous cuts they're seeking."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=639545&mesg_id=639549

[xiamiam]

71. 2 days ago you were calling krugman credible

" Economic indicators and credible independent economists disagree.
Edited on Sat Mar-26-11 11:18 AM by ClarkUSA
Read Paul Krugman, who was skeptical of President Obama's efforts before he saw the results and became a supporter of Team Obama's economic policy efforts"


are you dizzy yet?

[Ramulux]

54. Cenk has been saying this for 2 years

almost constantly. The dude doesn't understand how negotiations work or he has no desire to win negotiations.

[JoePhilly]

57. The guy who votedfor Bush in 2000?

[Ramulux]

64. No

[SolutionisSolidarity]

72. No. He was a Republican before Bush, but he voted for Gore.

He despises Bush - so much so that he became an independent after the 2000 election and made the full switch to liberal by 2003. I'm more to the left than Cenk, who is a free trader and lukewarm towards unions. But the Democratic party leadership is nothing but free traders, and on other issues he is to their left. He wants to wind down the wars, he'd rather raise taxes rather than cut social spending, and he supports single payer. I'd much rather vote for that than whatever bs ends up being in the Democratic Party platform this time around.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Memo to Obama: Saying, "I fold" before the cards are dealt is inadvisable.

However favorably the other "negotiators" may regard the gesture.

[QC]

58. Reminds me of a classic cartoon....

[JoePhilly]

56. What Bullshit.

Obama is gong to announce cuts to SS in the SOTU!!!!! Oops, no.

Obama is going to slash SS in his Budget!!! Oooops, no.

Maybe the 3rd time is the charm.

[mmonk]

61. I disagree about the negotiating. He does not negotiate

with liberals.

[SoCalDem]

67. Car for Sale..Asking $10K..will take $2k.

:)

[QC]

74. Yes, that nicely sums up the "negotiating" we have been seeing.

I think it's more a game of good cop/bad cop, though.

[cui bono]

76. Duh!

Saw that years ago!