US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

David Brooks admitted as much in January 2009 after dining with the other conservative columnists and Obama.

Bears repeating:

Of course enough Democrats will get in line behind Obama's proposal to pass it once they're told they must. Similarly, those progressive commentators who are first and foremost Democratic loyalists -- who rose up in angry and effective unison (along with actual progressives) to prevent George Bush from privatizing Social Security in 2005 -- will mount no meaningful opposition out of fear of weakening the President's political prospects. White House aides will just utter Michele Bachmann enough times like some magical spell and snap more than enough people into fear-induced compliance. The last thing the White House is worried about -- the last thing -- is its "base."

lol

who rose up in angry and effective unison (along with actual progressives) to prevent George Bush from privatizing Social Security in 2005 -- will mount no meaningful opposition out of fear of weakening the President's political prospects.

CNN's lead story right now is about Democratic outrcy about this proposal btw (Grivalja, Chu, other House liberals etc)

but let's be clear here - supporting this proposal and supporting his re-election are two different things

the libs made a stink about the tax deal, too. look at where that got them then.

not that there's any benefit in rehearsing these arguments, but if you cast a vote for a politician's reelection, you sign off on his policies

lol

How is endorsing this deal -- if it looks like what we're reading now -- not a tacit endorsement of Obama's reelection prospects, Shakey?

match that with Andy Cuomo trying to out-Christie Christie ... and the NJ Dem muckety-mucks sticking it to public unions recently. well, there are some pretty disheartened and pissed-off Dems up here these days. whether this ends up meaning anything is another matter.

well played max, I lol'd

How is endorsing this deal -- if it looks like what we're reading now -- not a tacit endorsement of Obama's reelection prospects, Shakey?

chant "President Bachman!!" or "President Palin!!" or whatever other liberal bogeyman a zillion times. Greenwald got that right, too.

How is endorsing this deal -- if it looks like what we're reading now -- not a tacit endorsement of Obama's reelection prospects, Shakey?

there are definitely House Dems who would vote against this purported deal and still support him in re-election.

isn't that Greenwald's point?

and their voting against it wouldn't weaken his Presidential prospects in the slightest. This doesn't change the fact that there are a majority of Democrats who will support the president in anything he does (just as a majority of Republicans pretty much always support a Republican president).

But saying the liberal wing of the party isn't going to complain about cutting Social Security/Medicare is just wrong. Knowing their in the minority in both the House and Senate, those liberal Democrats can comfortably vote against any such proposal with the knowledge their votes are largely symbolic and/or beholden to their own districts. And when it comes to the presidential election cycle, no one will care that this liberal minority voted against such a debt-ceiling deal, it won't impact Obama at all.

xp

I got in another argument this weekend with stupid liberals who wanted to chortle over Bachmann's latest outrage. "Never MIND what she said. Did you hear the stupid shit the President said last week?" I said to one.

I suppose the "meaningful" qualifier in Greenwald's statement there is the key. but when have liberals ever mounted meaningful opposition to anything in the last 10 years (Social Security in 2005 is a bad example - that died cuz the GOP didn't actually support it at the time)

tbf Bachmann is funnier

Pelosi says House Dems won't back plan that cuts Social Security

yipeekiyay

Not sure why there's so much hubbub over the concept of changing the inflation index but maybe I'm missing something.

i guess the devil is in the details, but if the inflation index change means that retirees end up getting benefits that don't really keep up with the costs of living then that is in effect a benefits cut.

Pelosi to Obama: "do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country."

Nice sound bite, Nancy. Thanks.

Pelosi says House Dems won't back plan that cuts Social Security

― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, July 7, 2011 7:28 PM (3 hours ago)

The White House seems open to tightening the inflation index to rein in future SS benefit growth. Pelosi's ultimatum is similar to the Republican's against all tax increases, even if they involve ending tax breaks. Higher revenues and lower benefits are both necessary to tame future deficits. Entitlement programs are unsustainable thanks to rising health care costs and the Baby Boom retirement. Tax revenues are near historic postwar lows as a result of the recession and the Bush tax cuts.

Pelosi said she wanted to have "full clarity" on the issue, warning the White House, "do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country."

wait what

if anyone wants some practice on the correct way to use the idiom "begging the question", refer to that quote

okay, so let's start talking about viable third party options

*eternal silence*

that was the journalist, not pelosi fwiw!

xp

lol j0rdan

I packed a bowl, inhaled, and made the mistake of relooking at this thread.

run for the hills, srsly

more false equivalence, try to split the difference (even when one argument is bogus) ... same old, same old.

or just don't vote for President at all ... if yer gonna throw away yer vote, do it properly.

don't blame me, I voted for kodos

Not sure at what point in the election cycle you hit the point of no return with the economy, but Obama must be flirting with it by now:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/08/news/economy/june_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

I don't know. In June of 2007, the 2008 election was all about Iraq. Events do follow their own course.

is that number the net total (ie, jobs added - jobs lost)?

I think it's just jobs added--i.e., I keep hearing that something like 150,000 new jobs are required each month to break even.

so what is the difference between this report and the one reference here:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/07/news/economy/jobs_claims_ADP/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&iid=EL

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The job market got two optimistic signs Thursday as private sector employers added 157,000 positions in June and fewer people filed new claims for unemployment benefits, according to two reports.

Payroll processing company ADP said private jobs grew rapidly in June -- a figure that was much higher than expected and more than four times higher than the prior month. May's figures were downwardly revised to 36,000 jobs.

What would it take for someone to challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination? Or is that simply not done anymore? (Last one I'm aware of was Ted Kennedy in 1980.) Granted, I'm not sure who would be positioned to do such a thing, especially since there doesn't seem to be enough public outcry against Obama from the left.

Your story is dated yesterday, mine's dated today. They're both from CNN Money. One says hello, the other goodbye. I'm totally confused.

ah I should have read to the end of the article I linked:

The Challenger and ADP reports typically set the tone for the government's highly anticipated monthly employment data, which will be released Friday morning. After weak jobs growth in May, economists and traders aren't expecting much better results from June's numbers.

Economists surveyed by CNNMoney are expecting the report to show 120,000 jobs added to payrolls. Typically, the economy needs to add about 150,000 just to keep pace with population growth.

look at how beautifully the last sentence of that first paragraph contradicts the first sentence of the second, btw

the main takeaway I'm getting here is that no one knows the fuck what's going on

I don't think a new Dem president would make much of a difference. What we need is a new ruling class, with new values.

I don't think those two sentences are contradictory if you keep that 150,000 figure in mind; as measured against that, 120,000 wouldn't be much better than 36,000, in the sense that both yield a net loss. What I find confusing is the line "The job market got two optimistic signs Thursday as private sector employers added 157,000 positions in June and fewer people filed new claims for unemployment benefits, according to two reports." This is written as a statement of fact, not as a projection--how does that jibe with the figure of 18,000 that came out today?

Weird, yesterday they were saying job numbers would look good and this morning they're saying they're not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Meanwhile Krugman criticizes Obama's Hooveresque talk and his debt strategy and suggests Congressional Dems should not go along:

I don’t believe that it’s all political calculation. Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.

Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

we also need a new constitution

Concentrated pressure from a functioning left wing is more realistic; but we've proven over the years that we've absorbed the GOP's insistence on our being outliers and thus have never organized with their force and precision.

I think it's just jobs added--i.e., I keep hearing that something like 150,000 new jobs are required each month to break even.

economically I am the most ignorant dude who ever lived but this is the sort of thing when I hear it that makes me think - wait - there's just no way - that's gotta be unsustainable - at some point the whole machine's gotta break, if 150,000 jobs have to be created every month to break even

just thinkin out loud I have been getting this shit explained to me since high school and the seed of economic reason can find no purchase in my thick skull