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

how long will this new david brooks view of the gop last? 1 day? 1 week? 1.5 weeks? what's his oped schedule again?

(he also commits a typo: "If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see. . . ." oh ny times)

maybe nu-brooks will last time the sunday talk shows?

david brooks has always had a hard-on for conservative scholars and intellectual authorities. he's a sort of Thomas Friedman of the GOP. i dunno if it's only now that Brooks has realized that the unschooled Teabaggers are steering the ship, and i've neither the time nor the stomach to peruse his back pages to find out.

I have a hard time seeing how Obama wont be blamed for this debt ceiling bullshit. The GOP narrative always seems to win out..

a historical lesson about what happens when rich fuckers insist on low taxes über alles for themselves.

Yep. Does anyone but Obama and his White House staff think the way to appeal to independents (and to everyone else) is to take what Obama perceives as a post-partisan centrist approach on everything, but gets viewed as watered-down and light by some and unexplainable by others because Obama and the Dems are not day in and day out spelling out the liberal argument in a way that would make it sensible and logical to most, or at least something to think about other than the Republican perspective.

Republicans and their pet economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin are as annoying on the subject of jobs as Tim Geithner (maybe even worse)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/republicans-falsely-claim-obama-advisers-burying-data-proving-stimulus-is-hurting-economy.php?ref=fpa

Republicans are also citing the Weekly Standard article to revisit one of their oldest claims about the stimulus: that every job the Recovery Act saved or created cost taxpayers about $278,000. That's the number you get if you clumsily divide the cost of the stimulus by the number of jobs it's responsible for. The White House is aggressively pushing back on this argument by pointing out that the stimulus paid for more than jobs -- it paid for new infrastructure, materials and so on.

Zandi adds another layer to this critique: "[I]t is inappropriate to say that ARRA cost taxpayers $278k per job. The cost should be calculated based on the number of full-time equivalents," he said. Specifically, the stimulus' efficiency shouldn't be calculated based only on how many full-time jobs it was responsible for, but by how many part-time or seasonal jobs it created as well. "I'm not arguing that ARRA was as efficient as it could have been, although given the political constraints and the crisis environment it is a significant achievement."

Some things never change:

As lawmakers prepare to cut trillions of dollars from the budget as a condition to raising the nation's debt ceiling, the story of the Cates Landing project underscores the dilemma that faces many members of the Republican-run House and the freshmen class in particular. Federal spending is derided as nothing short of a threat to the country's future -- unless, of course, it happens to be directed at that congressman's home district.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/freshman-republicans-federal-spending_n_890518.html

Dean Baker vs. George Will

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-will-spreads-some-lies-about-the-economic-crisis-2011-7

George Will got lots of approving pats on the back this weekend after he asked the (admittedly terrible) group of liberal co-panelists, "Can Congress require the obese to sign up for weight reduction programs" as a public interest?

https://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/george-will-proves-himself-wrong-about-the-constitution/

That was my obvious answer. It's the old Charles Evans Hughes adage: "The Constitution is what we say it is."

If Congress does not raise the debt limit, 42 percent of American adults say Republicans will be "mainly responsible," according to a June poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and Washington Post. Some 33 percent cited the Obama administration, and the rest answered both, neither, or unsure.

When asked how federal deficits should be reduced, 59 percent of Americans say they'd prefer a blend of spending cuts and tax hikes, according to an April ABC News/Washington Post poll. That's far more than the 36 percent who argue only for cutting spending (the approach Republican lawmakers are pushing for). Only 3 percent say to solve the budget problem entirely through tax hikes. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found a similar result.

Some 50 percent of American adults say they prefer Obama's approach to "tough" budget choices, while 42 percent favored that of Republicans, in a CNN/Opinion Research survey concluded at the beginning of May. On that question, Obama widened his lead since January.

SHUT IT DOWN

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/ron-paul-seeks-to-abolish-tsa-despite-its-500-cute-puppies/241479/

What's the surest sign that the Transportation Security Administration has an image problem? On its Web site, TSA.gov, one of the featured news items describes the agency's "puppy program." It's the fuzziest, most cuddly homeland security initiative ever undertaken. Staffers have so far helped breed and birth 500 adorable little dogs, who'll eventually be used to detect bombs and other explosives. Did I mention that each puppy is named for a 9/11 victim? Or that the widow of Captain Robert Edward Doland Jr., killed in the attack on the Pentagon, was invited on the "Today Show" a few months back to meet the namesake puppy of her late husband?

should I be this amused that the TSA is attempting to rehabilitate its image by breeding an animal known for greeting you by shoving its nose into your crotch

anybody else watching this #askobama thing?

most interesting moment so far has been when he made fun of a twitter user's profile pic

If Congress does not raise the debt limit, 42 percent of American adults say Republicans will be "mainly responsible," according to a June poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and Washington Post. Some 33 percent cited the Obama administration, and the rest answered both, neither, or unsure.

i find it really hard to believe that 75% of American adults (42%+33%) understand the debt limit issue at even the most basic level.

James Inhofe continues to be giant fucking douche.

Such arrogance. But I guess Oklahoma likes that.

"I did nothing wrong..." Actually, Senator, you did.

Yeah I mean talk about calling something its own opposite and just putting it out there in the press as truth. Classic example.

arrrrgh this fucking guy

The latest laff riot from homeland security and the US terror threat assessment crew:

http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/110706775-the-joker-bomb.htm

out of my way, i'm a united states senator!!

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

oyyyyyyyyyyyy

this is not actually surprising just disappointing right?

Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday. (<that's from the NYT article)

the doubling of the "savings" is surprising to me, although i have to admit i haven't followed it too closely over the last few days because i assumed it would go down to the wire.

i dunno what counts as a "surprise" anymore tbh

well like if he or any of our elected officials gained the power of flight and used it at a news conference, that would be a surprise

i'm really looking forward to these austerity measures, i've heard they've worked so well in the rest of the world

surely some things would shock even u -- like if obama was secretly preparing camps to use to imprison dissident internet posters, i wouldn't be mocked on this thread for being shocked and surprised, rite? xp

he is preparing camps btw. they're all in hardee's locations. you been in a hardee's lately? me neither...no one has..

i'm not surprised. just disappointed.

glad i've been drinking for a few hours at least

i dunno what counts as a "surprise" anymore tbh

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/Homer_Dole_Clinton.png/200px-Homer_Dole_Clinton.png

So once he tries to sell out the Dems to get a deal, does he really think independent voters are going to say "Yes, a deficit and debt deal for 4 billion instead of 2," that's our guy; and that the Republicans are going to turn around and join everyone else in saying "where are the jobs"? Whoever is doing the "White House polling" for him (that reinforces Obama's own personal view that he needs to be bipartisan) and that suggests this is the best course for him and the country, is probably the same pollster who said don't push for a bigger stimulus or get too tough on Wall Street.

and doesn't he realize that the Republicans are going to turn around and join everyone else in saying "where are the jobs" once a debt deal is finished?

Whoever is doing the "White House polling" for him (that reinforces Obama's own personal view that he needs to be bipartisan) and that suggests this is the best course for him and the country, is probably the same pollster who said don't push for a bigger stimulus or get too tough on Wall Street.

it's probably not a pollster. he has enough people on-staff to tell him all of this.

maybe he reads a lot of op-eds

Thom Friedman

pretty interesting polling stuff here

fwiw I think this generally supports what I've been saying about the GOP's presidential prospects - there simply aren't enough loony right-winger conservatives to elect Michelle Bachmann president, and if they nominate a "moderate" like Romney then odds are they will split the party and lose.

biggest eye-opener to me was that the percentage of Democrats who define themselves as "liberal" has increased from 28% to 41% since 1984

the percentage of Democrats who define themselves as "liberal" has increased from 28% to 41% since 1984

that's not Democrats, it's "people voting Democrat for US House"

anyway, i didn't find this very convincing:

http://www.tnr.com/article/not-even-past/91367/obama-presidency-roosevelt-economy-election-progressives

but this is:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-05/opinion/frum.democrats.debt_1_debt-ceiling-spending-cuts-bush-tax-cuts?_s=PM:OPINION

The budget deals of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton in comparison.

Which brings me back to my starting question: Why don't the Democrats rebel? Presumably, they elected Obama to stand up for their shared principles. But he's not standing up. He's rolling over. Or being rolled.

The Frum piece and the budget comparison piece spell out the ugliness

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/why-is-the-obama-team-embracing-hooverism/

what's the mystery? we live in an oligarchy

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/07/what-happens-on-august-3/

it’s far from clear that it’s even possible to stop making the 3 million payments that Treasury makes automatically every day. Doing so involves a massive computer-reprogramming effort which I’m sure could not be implemented overnight — and for political reasons nobody is going to get started on such an effort until after all hope is lost for a deal in Congress.

if that doesn't strike you as hilarious i don't think we share much of an outlook on life

I can't read anymore.