|
Post by tomaan on Aug 2, 2011 17:50:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 2, 2011 18:15:06 GMT
I like Taibbi on this one.
Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. Both the New York Times house editorial and the Nobel prizewinning liberal columnist Paul Krugman are insisting the president should have invoked extreme measures to counter the radicals on the other side, using emergency legal tactics to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Or, at least, he should have threatened to do this, according to Krugman:
"And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options...
At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning."
Is Krugman right? Probably. In a perfect world, where the president was what he is supposed to be, i.e. a representative of that majority of American voters who elected him, that is what a good president would probably have done. No matter what the situation was with the deficit, or what cuts were or were not justified, a real leader would have invoked such powers at the very least to set a precedent that the government is not to be held hostage by irresponsible lunatics bent on invoking a catastrophe for purely political reasons.
But that isn't what happened. What did happen? The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists. Observers like pollster Sydney Greenberg portray Obama and the Democrats as a group of politically tone-deaf bureaucrats who fail because the public associates them with a corrupt government that benefits the rich and connected.
The Democrats, Greenberg argues, could change their situation by showing the public that they genuinely represent the interests of ordinary working people. In his piece, "Why Voters Tune Out Democrats," he offers a list of things Democrats could do to turn things around:
"What should Democrats do?
The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials.
IF they want to win the trust of the public, Democrats should propose taxing lobbyist expenses and excessive chief executive bonuses and put a small fee on the sale of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments. By radically simplifying the tax code to allow only a few deductions, the Democrats would generate new revenue and remove the loopholes that allow special interests to win favorable treatment ..."
I think everything Greenberg says is true -- except for the part about it being possible. His list of solutions would make sense as advice to a real political party.
But to a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state, what good does such advice do? Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?
The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.
For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.
The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.
The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.
We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Aug 2, 2011 18:29:03 GMT
Problem bazukar the president is not elected by popular vote we have had presidents who won the popular vote but lost the election.
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 2, 2011 19:00:21 GMT
Problem bazukar the president is not elected by popular vote we have had presidents who won the popular vote but lost the election. Yeah 4 times actually. I see your point but I feel it doesnt really change the meat of the preceeding.
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Aug 2, 2011 19:48:03 GMT
Here in Ireland, the amount of businesses closing shop because there is no money being spent is astounding. More astounding is why there is no money being spent: the government stole it from the working classes (those that actually spend the money). Some of the folks I know on a first-name basis - working folk - can barely manage feeding their family 5 times out of 7 due to the new stealth taxes, yet the wealthy - those that caused the problem with their speculation on a risky market - are getting tax breaks. Meanwhile the dole (unemployment in other words) is paid to those that refuse to work, up to a clearing payout of €34'000 per year, taxes - both normal and stealth - free. Oh, and need I mention rent assist (you only pay a couple of euro for rent, regardless of size); travel assist (free bus and train passes depending on your needs; free university.. hillarious. And the government wonders why we're in so much trouble.
So if you're working in Ireland, you might as well carry a pack of condoms to work: you're getting screwed one way or another!
Easiest solution, imo, is to torch the government and financial institution that caused the problem in the first place (figuratively or literally) and teach the next batch a lesson that history won't soon foget..
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 2, 2011 21:35:11 GMT
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence? It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him? Bingo. He's been disappointing as a leader in many regards, but without campaign finance reform, which the SC recently made all-but-impossible, only the wealthy are really getting representation. No one who doesn't kowtow to them is going to bring in enough money to get elected - a classic race to the bottom. I'm still holding out hope that he's been governing center-right in order to get re-elected - though caving and doing cuts instead of a spending program was just a dumb, dumb move. Hello, more years of recession - which is of course precisely what the republicans want - at least the ones who aren't idiots or blinded by ideology, who have their own delusional set of reasons. As an aside, I'm kind of hoping they DO pass a balanced budget amendment. I think many republicans haven't considered what that will do to their go-to re-election tactic of starting a war... Plus, I think a fair number of them, when faced with paying the actual costs of their warmongering, are beginning to see the light. Funky
|
|
|
Post by sabregirl on Aug 2, 2011 21:55:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redbeard on Aug 2, 2011 22:04:37 GMT
As an aside, I'm kind of hoping they DO pass a balanced budget amendment. I think many republicans haven't considered what that will do to their go-to re-election tactic of starting a war... Plus, I think a fair number of them, when faced with paying the actual costs of their warmongering, are beginning to see the light. Funky The one that the Senate Republicans proposed has a fix for that: they just need 60% votes in both houses and they can spend anything they want. Two sections, one for war and one for .... they want to spend more. But don't call it a "Balanced Budget Ammendment". It is a cap on US Government spending of 75% of what we currently spend.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 2, 2011 22:43:42 GMT
But don't call it a "Balanced Budget Ammendment". It is a cap on US Government spending of 75% of what we currently spend. Yeah, that I don't agree with. I'm talking about a true balanced budget amendment, which there might actually be enough political capital for, at present. Of course, the notion that republicans spend like crazy and then try to blame it on democrats, is still absurd, but it would prevent them doing that the next time round. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2011 2:18:37 GMT
The political system in the US i pretty plainly broken. I don't get much into democrat vs republican anymore. It is just a show like any drama with good guys and bad guys. We (should) know it is all a load of crap. The members of the (interlocking) boards of directors of international corporations run the entire show, and they are both democrat and republican politicians.
Obama doesn't so much lack backbone, he lacks any real coherent internal ideology beyond profit maximization and the same cronyism that the system is based on today. If you were to pass a law saying he could only make $50k a year total you would see a LOT of backbone suddenly. But that is pretty much all politicians.
The Office of the President is simply just becoming the strawman for both parties together to blame.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 3, 2011 3:23:40 GMT
That's more characiture than fact. He's being doing fairly well in some areas. He's just been bending far too far in compromising with a bunch of lunatic ideologues. The republican party with their absurd 'governments R bad' ideology is still clearly the worst choice by a mile. The notion that cutting government creates jobs is a good candidate for politfact lie of the year.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Aug 3, 2011 11:18:03 GMT
The republican party with their absurd 'governments R bad' ideology is still clearly the worst choice by a mile. Funky Hmm. Governments: - Get us into wars we can't win
- Create debt we can't pay
- Approve laws in favor of corporations, not individuals.
- Do nothing to actively aid the poor, but instead help the middle class get poorer
- Do nothing to reduce crime in any noticeably sustainable way: in fact, they actively bring in new laws to allow corporates to re-brand civilians as criminals
- Fix roads? Pfft, roads are badly maintained - except for in wealthy areas, because hey our politicians can't handle the potholes right?
- Healthcare? Need I go here??
Help me out here. I see no benefit to governments at all.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Aug 3, 2011 12:17:19 GMT
The republican party with their absurd 'governments R bad' ideology is still clearly the worst choice by a mile. Funky Hmm. Governments: - Get us into wars we can't win
- Create debt we can't pay
- Approve laws in favor of corporations, not individuals.
- Do nothing to actively aid the poor, but instead help the middle class get poorer
- Do nothing to reduce crime in any noticeably sustainable way: in fact, they actively bring in new laws to allow corporates to re-brand civilians as criminals
- Fix roads? Pfft, roads are badly maintained - except for in wealthy areas, because hey our politicians can't handle the potholes right?
- Healthcare? Need I go here??
Help me out here. I see no benefit to governments at all. Government doesn't ruin things....people in government ruin things. (wasn't expecting such a lively debate from a joke news story!)
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 3, 2011 12:38:08 GMT
Krugman's article is delicious progressive red meat. I enjoyed it thoroughly and agree with much of what he is saying. From the political scientists point of view, however, the "failure" of Obama's presidency has been expected since day one. In fact, the "failure" of every president in our current system is now all but assured. Here's a brief recap of why:
1. FDR began the cult of the hero or "superman" presidency. The public began to believe that the president has vastly more power than he actually does. Along with that belief came a host of expectations and along with those expectations came a tremendous amount of presidential culpability if those expectations were not met.
2. The institution is designed for failure--with multiple veto points at almost every stage of legislation.
3. The president is held accountable for the economy. No incumbent has ever won reelection without presiding over robust economic growth. Enacting changes to the system often triggers temporary increases in unemployment and slow growth rates as businesses deal with the initial uncertainty brought about by those changes. In addition, the president has little control over the economy, but we blame him for it anyway.
4. No one remembers the particulars of given political situations during election time--With these debt negotiations, the Republicans had a huge advantage. They could drive the car over the cliff knowing full well that, come 2012, the public would blame Obama. Who's responsible for the Great Depression? Herbert Hoover. Stagflation? Jimmy Carter. The recession of the early 90s? George H.W. Bush. Congress played enormous roles in setting (or thwarting) economic policy during those times but no one remembers the names of the Congressional leaders of 1930, 1979, or 1991.
5. There is no bully pulpit. Typically, scholars (and politicians) believe that the president has this tremendous power to shape public opinion via the bully pulpit. We point to Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan as examples of powerful speakers who moved the county forward. Truth is, their words meant nothing. Newspapers of the day reporting on the Gettysburg Address read: "The President gave a speech." FDR's fireside chats reached less than 18% of Americans and his favorability numbers moved no more than 1% after any of them. Reagan spent most of the 1980s trying to convince Americans that we faced a grave threat in Latin America, no one believed him. George W. Bush enacted an all-out marketing blitz in 2005 to sell the privatization of social security to the American people. After countless press conferences, over 100 speeches and town hall events, and 2 national addresses, public support for his plan actually fell by 6%. Since the advent of cable television, the number of people who actually see a presidential news conference has been cut by 2/3rds, and the market model of news, which emerged in the late 1970s has led to the prioritizing of conflict and "balanced" punditry that often wipes out even the minuscule gains a presidential speech might get.
6. The President can move Congressmen just about as much as he can move the public. The famed "LBJ treatment" which was thought to be a remarkable example of how a president can bargain, cajole, strong-arm, or otherwise manipulate Congress to his will never won LBJ a single close vote in Congress. We might love it when Jed Bartlett and the boys twist arms with their sharp wit and unimpeachable logic, but that's way more Hollywood than Washington.
There are a number of other reasons, but these are the top six. They are why every president since Ike has left office with lower approval ratings than he had on day one.
As to the entire debt ceiling debate? It boils my blood. Completely. It is a farce. It is a spectacle. It is absurd and all the politicians involved in wrangling are damn near impeachable in my eyes. They actively held the country hostage and caused REAL financial damage to everyone over what is, effectively, a technicality of legislature.
I believe there is only one other country in the world that has a debt ceiling (I believe denmark?). Every other legislative body in the world makes either the implicit or explicit assumption that voting to spend money that they don't have involves borrowing it. In 1960? the us added the debt ceiling as a procedural method of avoiding this 2 part dance every time they approved spending above the countries income. It was supposed to be an arbitrarily high number that allowed the process to go smoothly. The debt ceiling is completely artificial, and even pretending that you wont raise it is appalling. It's like buying a new couch with your credit card and then refusing to pay the bill afterwards. It is a complete joke.
And, worst of all, it has distracted our news, our politicians, and our citizens (not to mention the world) from the real issues right now... namely the european financial crisis (don't even try to pretend that that's not the big issue right now), the arab summer, the terrorism in Norway, and all the other civil rights issues in the world today.
Shame on the politicians. Far greater shame than most anything I have seen before.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 3, 2011 13:22:11 GMT
|
|