Obama Tailspin

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its like watching a greek tradegy. A noble man, undone by hubris.

Obama is now flailing. He's trying to float the "I'm a populist", and you can smell the fakery a mile away. He's not a populist. He's an erudite thinker that tries to build consesnus, and he shouldn't move away from that, bewcause he doesn't know how to be a popullist. Its a fatal move for him if he does. You can tell he's out of his element now. He's chucked out the window what got him elected, and doesn't understand that Americans can see through the cheap trinkets and baubles he's waiving around. Americans want change.

And the change they want right now is jobs, and sadly for Team Obama, they have no idea how to get them for the American electorate (if Obama would call, I'd be happy to get him out of the mess he's gotten himself into). There is no way in hell Obama will get relected with a greater than 10% unemployemtn rate, and a greater than 17% underemployment rate. There is no way he'll get elected while foreclosures are getting people kicked to the streets. There is no way he'll get re-elected if small business don't get some credit, so they can start hiring again. he could do sooooo many things, smalll but big market movers, that would send the right message and actually change the dynamic.

1. Include mortages in the bankruptcy process, which would give homeowners a huge stick to waive the banks. It shares the pain between lender and lendee. There's no reason why that asset should be protected. Wall Street hates this, Americans would see it as levelling the playing feild, its would help stop the tide of defaults, stabilize home prices, and essentially solve the forclosure crisis. That one act alone would swing HUGE numbers of voters to Obama.

2. Direct lending to small businesses through the SBA program. If trillions of dollars can be funneled into a dozen banks, we can funnel a fraction of that to businesses that actually employ 80% of the working population in America. If there is no relief for small businesses, there will be no jobs recovery. The faster small businesses get credit, the faster they hire, make purchases, and start pumping the money into the economy, where it needs to be pumped... at the disperresed, individual level.

If he does those two things, he'll have people clamoring to elect him God.

[Lurker]

If only Obama had proposed to allow bankruptcy judges to reduce or eliminate mortgage debt, or had proposed to increase SBA loans, Embar would love him forever!

I wonder what the Republican position on those proposals was.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Democratic leaders had pulled the measure from consideration last week amid opposition from industry organizations including the American Bankers Association.

Dems had control of the House and Senate, and could have passed anything they wanted. Obama didn't really push the ideas, only giving lip service to them. Also, Obama's loan-mod program is, by all accounts, a failure. He's done relatively little to prevent the shenannigans by loan servicers. And now, even thought he majority of the people in the loan mod program have made timely payments for months, they are at risk of being forced into forclosure, largely because the laon servicers are jacking with the paperwork.

The measure, which passed the House 234-191, now goes to the Senate.

That indicates there was bi-partisan support.

Dems dropped the ball on a bill that had bi-partisan support, after they caved to the banking industry.

[Lurker]

7 Republicans voted for the bill in the House and 167 voted against it. That's bi-partisan? The bill died in the Senate when 12 Dems joined the Republicans in filibustering the bill. Somehow, that's Obama's fault.

Obama tried to enact the two things you say you want in the face of lockstep Republican obstruction and a handful of Democrats that are either stupid or owned by industry.

So we're left with another in a string of "Embar attacks Obama" diaries, and the entire premise of your thread is false.

[Embar Angylwrath]

7 Republicans voted for the bill in the House and 167 voted against it. That's bi-partisan? The bill died in the Senate when 12 Dems joined the Republicans in filibustering the bill. Somehow, that's Obama's fault.

Obama tried to enact the two things you say you want in the face of lockstep Republican obstruction and a handful of Democrats that are either stupid or owned by industry.

So we're left with another in a string of "Embar attacks Obama" diaries, and the entire premise of your thread is false.

If 7 Repubs crossed party lines to vote, thats 7 less Dems needed to apss, right? It gives political cover. You can't make the "lockstep" claim if there was some bipartisan support.

How many Republicans were needed to enact Obama's plan? why didn't Obama get shit done? Why didn't he come out and speak against the Dems for defeating his proposal?

And you might have missed the second part of the story when the House tried to do it again in December (I think), and even more Dems jumped ship. The Dems deserve whats coming for them. They can't hide behind the Reps now and claim they are the party of the people when they side with the banking industry.

[Lurker]

7 Republican votes in the House is not bi-partisan, and the Senate had lockstep opposition by the Republicans.

Here's my problem with you, Embar. You want to attack Obama for being a phony and you want him to implement your great ideas, when the reality is he already proposed those ideas and Congress failed to enact them. You want to complain about the Democrats without acknowledging that the Party you most closely align with didn't provide a single Senate vote. That's why you have no credibility with these attack threads.

[Embar Angylwrath]

7 Republican votes in the House is not bi-partisan, and the Senate had lockstep opposition by the Republicans.

Here's my problem with you, Embar. You want to attack Obama for being a phony and you want him to implement your great ideas, when the reality is he already proposed those ideas and Congress failed to enact them. You want to complain about the Democrats without acknowledging that the Party you most closely align with didn't provide a single Senate vote. That's why you have no credibility with these attack threads.

Seven Rep votes is bi-partisan. Maybe not the amount you'd like to see, but Reps crossed the aisle and gave the Dems coverage. No escaping that. And in the Senate (as in the House), the Dems didn't need one single solitary Rep vote to pass the legislation, a matter you seemingly forget in your posts.

Proposing ideads and getting shit done are two different sides of the coin. If Obama can't get shit done with complete (former) control of bouth houses of Congress, what good is he?

[Lurker]

I don't think 4% of the House Republican caucus counts as bi-partisan, but whatever. Does it bother you that not a single Republican in the Senate voted in favor of two things you find so critically important?

On the one side, we have Obama and most Democrats trying to enact legislation that Embar finds critically important. On the other side we have every single Republican Senator and a handful of Democrats blocking that legislation. I wonder which side Embar spends his time attacking.

You have zero credibility with these attack threads.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think 4% of the House Republican caucus counts as bi-partisan, but whatever. Does it bother you that not a single Republican in the Senate voted in favor of two things you find so critically important?

On the one side, we have Obama and most Democrats trying to enact legislation that Embar finds critically important. On the other side we have every single Republican Senator and a handful of Democrats blocking that legislation. I wonder which side Embar spends his time attacking.

You have zero credibility with these attack threads.

Yes, it does bother me. It bothers me a great deal. I'm as tired of the posturing as just about everyone else in the country. I'm tired of Dems claiming they are for the people, and then voting for banking interests. I'm tired of Reps saying they think the wholesale conversion of taxpayer funds into the pockets of Wall Street is a travesty, and then not doing anything to stop it.

Personally, I don't care about my credibility to you or anyone else on these boards, your opinion is just as unimportant to me as mine is to you. I'm not here to win a popularity contest. And my question to you stands...

If Obama can't advance his agenda with full control of the Legislature, what good is he?

[Lurker]

Personally, I support the people trying to move the ball in the right direction and denounce the people trying to obstruct that movement. Not the other way around.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Personally, I support the people trying to move the ball in the right direction and denounce the people trying to obstruct that movement. Not the other way around.

As I do as well. The question becomes "where would the ball best be moved".

There are plenty of commonalities that both Reps and Dems can agree on IF, and I say this with a big IF.. they have the electorate's best interests foremost in their minds. Both the Dems and the Reps are really nothing more than willing servants to large, monied, interests. Whether you agree or disagree with a certain idealogy to make American stronger, be that the leftist tendency to socialization and re-distribution of wealth, or the conservative trend to let market forces and an even playing field shape a stronger America, the fact is, neither are holding to their idealogies.

I'll take the Reps first...
Unchecked market forces nearly killed America. With the intertwining of the Fed supporting Wall Street, underwriting bank losses (FDIC Insurance), giving banks a preferred interest rate on Fed money, and eventually pumping unfathomable amounts of taxpayer dollars into just a few public companies, the Reps were complicit in shifting business losses to the taxpayers, and funneling huge amounts of spending to a very small set of interest groups. They'd be howling if someone suggested Congress do the same for unions. They abandoned all of the core conservative principles. They funneled taxpayer money into a small set of corporations. They helped increase the national debt to do so. They helped guarantee that for at least 2-3 generations to come, our children will be paying off this debt. They hamstrung the American dollar, the American bond. And now, with a Dem president, they won't vote to march back some of the shit they caused, just because he's a Dem, and they smell political blood in the water.

As for the Dems...
They railed against Bush's economic policies, then voted for the same flavor of shit when Obama was in office. They voted to protect banking interests, just like the Reps. They had a chance to make a case "for the people" on healthcare reform, and then fucked it up with closed door negotiations and backroom deals, and they STILL couldn't bribe/buy/force/cajole members to an agreement. They voted down the budget commission. Hell, McCain was in support of that!!! They have been exposed as just as tied to large monied interests as the Reps. And this was an image they had largely avoided until now.

I have said before, and was mocked by a couple of you for saying this... ignore the independents at your peril. Some of you poo-poohed that remark, claiming that independents were just Republican-Lite, former Reps that didn't want to be associated with the Republican party. A part of that may be true. But the larger part, the part that should cause both parties to take pause, is that there may (and I truely beleive this) be a substantial segment of the American electorate that is fiscally conservative and socially neutral, the true independents, who will shape the elections for the next few years. That is the segment that both Dems and Reps need to appeal to. If both parties ignore the message that was sent to them in Mass, there will be a substantially different Congress in 2010, and a different President after Obama loses the next election.

On a side note... if Obama continues on his "populist" image remaking, he will fail. He campaigned on being someone that could bring both sides to the table, and enact real change. So far, he hasn't delivered, even when he had complete control of his own party. He had cross-oer support from Reps and Independents hoping that his actions could back his words. But so far, all he's been able to deliver is great speeches, but little in the way of follow up. If Obama wants to be re-elected, he has to throw the dice, put his party on the line as well as the Reps, challenege both to be better, and hold both accountable when they aren't. THAT'S what Americans elected Obama to be. Someone who stands apart from the rest. Not someone who has great speech writers and knows when to drop his voice at the end of a sentence (we all learned that in HS debate).

[Partha]

A part of that may be true. But the larger part, the part that should cause both parties to take pause, is that there may (and I truely beleive this) be a substantial segment of the American electorate that is fiscally conservative and socially neutral, the true independents, who will shape the elections for the next few years. That is the segment that both Dems and Reps need to appeal to. If both parties ignore the message that was sent to them in Mass, there will be a substantially different Congress in 2010, and a different President after Obama loses the next election.

Disagree. The majority of voters period are 'low-information' voters, independents included. And chasing a true independent is like trying to please a five year old - they only know what they want, not what has to be done to get it. Further, there's the myth again about 'fiscally conservative'. We've had those Pew surveys for 30 years now, and they all agree that government spending should be increased. The problem there is no one can act like an adult and tell them if they want them, they're going to have to pay for them. So one side tries to pretend that tax cuts solve everything and the other side, since they realize the tax cut guys control the message machine in America, spend their time trying to pretend that they're not adults, too.

[Lurker]

There are plenty of commonalities that both Reps and Dems can agree on IF, and I say this with a big IF.. they have the electorate's best interests foremost in their minds.

But they don't. The entire Republican caucus in the Senate and about 95% of the House has decided that it's in their best interest electorally to just oppose everything, country be damned. And yes, I know that the Democrats on paper had enough members in their caucus to break a filibuster but the party has never been good at lockstep unity. If there were any moderate Republicans left that were willing to negotiate in good faith we'd be a lot better off and pieces of legislation you think are critical would have been enacted.

Right now the country is paralyzed because of the perversion of the filibuster in the Senate. We're fucked unless the Republicans start acting in good faith for the good of the country, or the filibuster is eliminated... and I don't see either of those happening any time soon.

[Kulaf]

I think you will see Republican support on issues that aren't literally diametricly opposed to what they stand for. Government funded (in any way) healthcare is not something that comes naturally for any conservative/Republican to support. It just isn't.

So if the country truely wants the kind of Helthcare reform being discussed now, the country will have to vote in more Democrats. The solution is not to change the rules of government.....but to change the governors.

[Partha]

I think you will see Republican support on issues that aren't literally diametricly opposed to what they stand for. Government funded (in any way) healthcare is not something that comes naturally for any conservative/Republican to support. It just isn't.

Nonsense. Look at how quickly they pivoted to defending Medicare from the eeeeevil Obamacare. 'Oh nos they're going to cut your Medicare!'

No, the party is in the hands of extremists, and the moderates have been driven out. Some have become Democrats, some have become 'Independents'. Unfortunately, as in California, there's enough to destroy policymaking of any kind as long as it's in their interests. And they are more interested at the top levels at destroying government than running it effectively.

[Lurker]

I think you will see Republican support on issues that aren't literally diametricly opposed to what they stand for.

You mean like we saw for the bipartisan commission for deficit reduction legislation where even the Republican co-sponsors voted against it?

Edit: After double-checking, the legislation got 14 Republican votes but failed to break a filibuster. So this was not a good example to back up my point about Republican obstruction, but was a good example about the need to eliminate the filibuster.


===

And yeah, the opposition to health reform has been almost entirely dishonest as Partha points out. They ran a disinformation campaign and did not discuss the issue in good faith.

[Kulaf]

Partha, how is that any different to what the Democrats did in 95 when the Republicans were looking to "reform" Medicare? All you have illustrated is that both politcal parties play......politics.

[Partha]

Because Democrats believe in government solutions to problems while post-Reagan Republicans insist that government IS the problem.

Therefore, when Republicans insist that they will be the caretakers that will save government-run healthcare from the government, it's as logical as 'we had to destroy the village to save it.'

When Democrats, however, insist that cutting government services is a bad idea, that's actually IN their ideological wheelhouse.

[Lurker]

And the Republican changes in 1995 were drastically different than what's being proposed now and they were opposed by all the seniors groups.

As for now, even David Frum thinks the Republicans are playing a dangerous game.

[Kulaf]

Because Democrats believe in government solutions to problems while post-Reagan Republicans insist that government IS the problem.

Therefore, when Republicans insist that they will be the caretakers that will save government-run healthcare from the government, it's as logical as 'we had to destroy the village to save it.'

When Democrats, however, insist that cutting government services is a bad idea, that's actually IN their ideological wheelhouse.

Actually that is wrong. Most of the Reagan era Republicans are amazed that their party has abandoned its firm stance against entitlement programs and now has embraced Medicare.