Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[The Romulan Republic]

This topic has come up a lot lately in other threads (and its really just the newest spin on the long-standing question of Obama's reputation for conceding important issues to the Right), and I thought I'd make a poll.

Personally, I think its a lousy deal, but it may have been the best option left and I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I'd certainly rather this than a default.

Moderators: I hope this is alright, but if this thread is too redundant, please merge it or lock it at your discretion.

[Zaune]

I don't like it, and I don't agree with his reasoning for it, but that says more about me than it does about Barack Obama. I can't condemn him for refusing to gamble with the lives of a hundred million people for a long-shot at making things better, no matter how rotten the status quo is.

I would have, in his place, but that makes me a lot of things I wish I wasn't.

[Setzer]

I think he made the best of things, but he really wasn't authoritative enough to prevent it from coming to this impasse. I also think he's merely delayed the problem. Unless we increase taxes, we won't be able to pay down the debt.

[Lord of the Abyss]

"I don't approve, and will vote for him next year" - because after all, what are my options? Put a Republican who'll be even worse than he is in office?

[Agent Sorchus]

Raise taxes, cut military spending, especially overseas deployment. Might even need to throw on a works program, and so long as we are airing a pipe-dream throw in single payer health and a time machine so that the president could work for all this from day one.

I'm not voting for him, the greens need my vote far far more. This deal throws the debt issue down the line a year, and is going to thrash right around elections. As such there is almost no way the Democrats are going to survive. At best the issue will skip elections and thrash into the first months of a republican president. Did I say Best? Best as in best politically for the Democrats, worst for the nation as a whole. Maybe if Obama is re-elected and this goes bombshell on his first months it will be worse for the nation, but I kinda doubt that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't see why we should legitimize these political choices by pretending it was up to us in 2008, 2010, or will be up to us in 2012. The Establishment wants austerity, everywhere, and they will get it, no matter who is elected. There is very broad political consensus on the essential vectors of core policy prescriptions. I don't think people should fall for the psychological trick of being tied as 'responsible' or 'not responsible' or similar bilge to the contents of Washington's machinations.

This kind of stuff makes me think the Soviets only fell because they didn't have a pro-choice CPSU to run against the pro-life one, and oblige everyone to legitimize the essentially unchanging content of dominant institutions.

That said, of course abstractly I do not approve, and I will not vote for him next year. But that would have been the case no matter what. As for the "don't approve and I will vote for him next year" majority-thus-far crowd, well, you really don't have any room to complain next time, now do you? But I'm of course you battered-wives will soothe the bruises by telling yourself he didn't mean it, that it wasn't up to him, that he does that sometimes, and who knows how much worse it could be with someone else?! Of course he must really want to help and make things better, he just can't help himself because of those dastardly Republicans! Of course we need to really realllly reallllllyyyy worry about these near-fascists, but I don't need you to actually do anything other than passively lend me support and pull my lever every four years. How curious, we don't need you to organize or do anything in your communities or social spaces, like maybe that was needed in the 30s, but this time just watch The Daily Show and shake your fist impotently and be 'politically sophisticated' by bitching with people who read the same blogs as you! That's how you change things! Why, I think that's how we got out of Vietnam!

The Democratic Party is a corporate lobbyists' dream.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'll take it over the economic instability we'd be hit with if the ratings agencies suddenly all dropped the US credit rating several notches.

That said, of course abstractly I do not approve, and I will not vote for him next year. But that would have been the case no matter what. As for the "don't approve and I will vote for him next year" majority-thus-far crowd, well, you really don't have any room to complain next time, now do you? But I'm of course you battered-wives will soothe the bruises by telling yourself he didn't mean it, that it wasn't up to him, that he does that sometimes, and who knows how much worse it could be with someone else?!

I know it could be worse with a Republican President. At least I can count on Obama not to sign any grotesque bills on abortion, or a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or any bill that would abolish the good things we've gotten with health care reform during his term.

I don't consider "lesser of two evils" to be a bad thing in politics.

Of course he must really want to help and make things better, he just can't help himself because of those dastardly Republicans! Of course we need to really realllly reallllllyyyy worry about these near-fascists, but I don't need you to actually do anything other than passively lend me support and pull my lever every four years.

There's nothing passive about GOTV efforts, or going door-to-door, or attending the caucuses. Obama's successful candidacy was based around those efforts, and they are trying to encourage their supporters to do that again this time around.

[K. A. Pital]

I'll take it over the economic instability we'd be hit with if the ratings agencies suddenly all dropped the US credit rating several notches.

You sure that won't happen next year? Because the US debt problem is not going away. You don't make 14 trillion worth of debt go away by making pitiful 1 trillion in 10 years spending cuts, no matter how much Obama or the rest want it. You won't make your economy crawl out of the woods either; it looks like a Frankenstein only propped up by multi-trillion government injections. They stop, so does the touted growth which is supposed to eventually lead you out of this mess.

[Simon_Jester]

I approve of Obama's compromise given the circumstances, which were nearly intolerable. IP can go on as much as he wants about how it's all just corporatists giving us two parties to create the illusion of choice, but if he thinks the Tea Party wasn't prepared to totally crash the US economy and screw over everyone getting a government paycheck or benefits check to make a point here, he's kidding himself.

With that as the alternative, assessing his performance this week, I'd say Obama did good. If I'd been teleported into his shoes a few days ago, I'd probably have gritted my teeth and signed the same compromise, because the situation was impossible otherwise.

However, I have already become convinced that Obama has no interest in furthering my political agenda more than the minimum needed to get my vote, which means I can damn sure find a better person to cast that vote for. I'd pretty much made up my mind on this before the debt ceiling arose- Obama lacks the aggression and moral courage to be the president I hoped he'd be in 2009. Only now is he showing signs that he begins to grasp how much he's traded away for the sake of compromise, and it's too damn late.

So I'm going to be shopping around a bit for candidates. The "but Republicans are worse!" argument is totally true, but fortunately I have the luxury of living in a fairly deep blue state- the ideal place to express protest votes for candidates to Obama's left.

[SirNitram]

Ideals v. lives will go to lives every time in my book. I agree with Obama's compromise, as a result of the situation. That being said, I'm not gonna be even slightly surprised if it can't pass the House.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I feel like if he'd been tougher and braver sooner, we might not have faced the current crisis, or faced it from a stronger position. But now that he's painted into a corner, compromise is the correct decision.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much difference would have been made by replacing him with someone more resolute and determined to pursue a center-left agenda at the expense of right-wing policy objectives. Some, perhaps- but how much?

I'm also wondering if the current iteration of the Republican Party will ever be able to accept the legitimacy of Democrats in office- they won't stand for Obama, but who would they stand for?

[Guardsman Bass]

I think Obama was just blindsided on the "debt ceiling" fight. There's never really been huge issues with getting it raised in the past.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much difference would have been made by replacing him with someone more resolute and determined to pursue a center-left agenda at the expense of right-wing policy objectives. Some, perhaps- but how much?

Probably not much. Obama can advocate and veto/sign, but he can't start or vote on legislation in Congress. He needs cooperative democrats in Congress.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, you Americans can't bring yourselves to control the flow of cash that greases the wheels of office. What should you then expect? THis is probably the best of the worst possible options, so take it or leave it.

[Minischoles]

Again, I feel like if he'd been tougher and braver sooner, we might not have faced the current crisis, or faced it from a stronger position. But now that he's painted into a corner, compromise is the correct decision.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much difference would have been made by replacing him with someone more resolute and determined to pursue a center-left agenda at the expense of right-wing policy objectives. Some, perhaps- but how much?

Given his previous experiences 'negotiating' with the GOP, it was inevitable he would fold - they knew this, and they were more than prepared to push it to the brink, confident in the knowledge he would blink first and give them everything they wanted.
If he had proven to be tougher in the past instead of bending over at the first oppurtunity, maybe it would have been different, but that also depends on just how batshit insane the GOP and Tea Party is.

Honestly, his compromise is worthless, but at least it keeps people alive for the moment. However, with no tax increases in sight and yet more places being created for the GOP to create a media circus during negotiations, he's just pushing the problem away as the situation gets worse and worse. Imagine facing this again in 6-12 months, when the US credit rating is garbage and the GOP can grandstand even more.

Take the special commitee for instance, who honestly believes that won't turn into a complete mess? it'll be another game of political brinkmanship, and the GOP win either way. Get what they want, or get to smear the shit out of Obama and the Democrats for failing to compromise and cutting the holiest of holies - the Defence Budget.

[Thanas]

President Obama's surrender

In the end, President Obama had to admit surrender. He tried to put a bold face on it, but there's no other way to interpret his remarks to the nation announcing that Congressional leaders had cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

The details of the deal are stark: at least $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next two years, a two-stage approach to raising the debt ceiling, and a new committee to recommend further cuts to entitlement programs, along with huge automatic spending cuts if Congress fails to institute that plan. As described, the deal is a major victory for Republicans that will further embolden them over the next 18 months, and may mortally wound Obama's chances of reelection.

The president told the nation that after ten years the United States would have "the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President." He said this as if it was something to be proud of. The truth is, we are a far different nation today than we were in the 1950s. We have millions more citizens, and are undergoing a major demographic shift as the Baby Boomer generation ages. With health care costs continuing to rise, the squeeze will be on. People will suffer.

The president stated that "I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced." And yes, Obama has long maintained that revenue increases that would partially balance out any cuts to entitlement programs must be part of any deal. But there are no revenue increases in this deal. And it is surely a pipe dream to imagine that Democrats will be able to include any new revenue increases in further negotiations. After what we've seen so far, first in the government shutdown drama and now in the debt ceiling fight -- when Republicans hold firm, Democrats give in. The pattern has been set.

Over the last few months, the president also told the American people, again and again, that he wanted a hike in the debt ceiling that would extend to 2013. He wanted, justifiably, to avoid another hostage situation that would bring normal government business to a halt and distract us from more pressing priorities. But the deal he has agreed to ensures that we will be fighting this same battle all over again next year, in the middle of a campaign season. From what we know of the deal, it doesn't sound like Republicans will be able to hold the debt ceiling hostage 2012 in exactly the same fashion as they did this year -- the new plan appears to incorporate Senator Mitch McConnell's "vote of disapproval" gimmick for the next stage -- but the triggers that will enforce automatic spending cuts if Congress fails to cut entitlements make that point moot. The gun is still to White House's head. Medicare will be on a bipartisan chopping block.

The new deal, so far as had been described on Sunday, also included no measures to stimulate an economy that may be sliding back into recession. Obama claimed that "We also made sure that these cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on a fragile economy," but there will almost certainly be some reductions in spending that kick in during the next fiscal year that will pile dangerously high on top of the cuts already instituted this year. If a double-dip recession is looming, these cuts will further constrict economic growth.

If one wished to give the president the benefit of the doubt, one could argue that maybe there was nothing he could have done to get a better deal. House Republicans were willing to push the nation into default -- and that's a scenario no sane leader could responsibly endorse. Obama couldn't credibly threaten a veto of any legislation that would reach his desk because Obama ultimately would not and could not voluntarily choose to default on the nation's obligations. Obama had to choose between an awful deal or an outright catastrophe. There's no way to come out of that jam smelling of roses.

But he didn't need to try to sell this resolution as some sort of "compromise." The president said it was not "the deal I would have preferred." He should have been stronger. He should have said it's a bad deal that does not address the pressing needs of the nation, and sets in stone cuts in entitlements that will savage an aging population faced by spiraling health care costs. And then he should have acknowledged that he still had to sign it, because the alternative would have ensured a nearly immediate slide into recession and the strong possibility of a global financial shock.

All in all, the weekend's events represent a smashing victory for the Tea Party and a crushing defeat for Democrats -- and more of the same coming down the pike. But at least Congress will be able to recess on time next week. The deal -- and the damage -- is done.

Want to avoid more of the same? Don't vote for Obama. Or if you do, don't complain about im folding every damned time.


Democratic policies in a nutshell

Let's begin by taking note of three facts:

(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);

(2) The reported deal on the debt ceiling is so completely one-sided -- brutal domestic cuts with no tax increases on the rich and the likelihood of serious entitlement cuts in six months with a "Super Congressional" deficit commission -- that even Howard Kurtz was able to observe: "If there are $3 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes, Obama will have to explain how it is that the Republicans got 98 pct. of what they wanted," while Grover Norquist, the Right of the Right on such matters, happily proclaimed: "Sounds like a budget deal with real savings and no tax hikes is a go."

(3) The same White House behavior shaping the debt deal -- full embrace of GOP policies and (in the case of Social Security cuts) going beyond that -- has been evident in most policy realms from the start. It first manifested in the context of Obama's adoption of the Bush/Cheney approach to the war on civil liberties and Terrorism, which is why civil libertarians were the first to object so vocally and continuously to the Obama presidency, culminating in this amazing event from mid-2010: "Speaking at a conference of liberal activists Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero didn't mince his words about the administration's handling of civil liberties issues. 'I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president,' Romero told the America's Future Now breakout session."

In other words, a slew of millionaire politicians who spent the last decade exploding the national debt with Endless War, a sprawling Surveillance State, and tax cuts for the rich are now imposing extreme suffering on the already-suffering ordinary citizenry, all at the direction of their plutocratic overlords, who are prospering more than ever and will sacrifice virtually nothing under this deal (despite their responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse that continues to spawn economic misery). And all of this will be justified by these politicians and their millionaire media mouthpieces with the obscenely deceitful slogans of "shared sacrifice" and "balanced debt reduction" -- two of the most odiously Orwellian phrases since "Look Forward, not Backward" and "2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate" (and anyone claiming that Obama was involuntarily forced by the "crazy" Tea Party into massive budget cuts at a time of almost 10% unemployment: see the actual facts here).

With those fact assembled, this morning's New York Times article -- headlined: "Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift" -- supplies the perfect primer for understanding Democratic Party politics. The article explains that "Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies," and then lists numerous examples just from the debt debate alone (never mind all the other areas where he's done the same):

No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years' spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber's most conservative Republicans. . . .

But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party's voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they're thinking in this regard:

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”

In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Want to avoid more of the same? Don't vote for Obama. Or if you do, don't complain about im folding every damned time.

And just who else can the Americans vote for? A Republican?

[Lonestar]

Third party

[weemadando]

...so, has Obama actually sacked up and done ANYTHING without crippling it to the point of pointlessness with concessions to the GOP/TeaParty?

I mean, short of expanding wars, covering for war criminals and that kind of shit.

Y'know, his whole "HOPE" schtick seems more like "DESPAIR" right about now.

[Sea Skimmer]

Want to avoid more of the same? Don't vote for Obama. Or if you do, don't complain about im folding every damned time.

Hun? People don't vote Obama then that's just supporting a Republican who WILL do the same or worse for certain instead of 98% of the time. Relecting Obama gives that slight hope that with no concern about reelection he might be a tiny bit more forceful. I doubt it, but anything would beat a raving idiot like Bachmann and well, fearmongering on that note is a valid enough reason to vote for him. It is just reality. A serious Democrat challenge against him in the primaries is just a way to ensure the Democrats loose. That said, if the Republicans somehow can put up someone who is remotely rational, which I don't expect but who knows, they've been looking for someone to pull out of the woodwork (just as Obama was) for months, I see precious little reason to vote for Obama at all.

[Gandalf]

Want to avoid more of the same? Don't vote for Obama. Or if you do, don't complain about im folding every damned time.

And just who else can the Americans vote for? A Republican?

There were several other candidates. Link.

[Vaporous]

Don't approve, not voting for him again.

As long as the Democratic party establishment knows that they can keep getting elected by scaring liberals with Sarah Palin soundbites, they will continue to betray their supposed base. Why should they take the risk of opposing the financial interests that pay for their campaigns when they can get the same results on bullshit promises and fear?

And just who else can the Americans vote for? A Republican?

What's the point in choosing at all if this is the choice we're left with?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Want to avoid more of the same? Don't vote for Obama. Or if you do, don't complain about im folding every damned time.

And just who else can the Americans vote for? A Republican?

There were several other candidates. Link.

You mean voting a lame duck president into office is a good idea?

[SirNitram]

Third party

Which one has the powerbase, voter base, and infrastructure to offer a credible chance of getting to the top? As opposed to just, you know, talking about it or having debates with finger puppets(One might guess I don't like Nader. They'd be right.)?

[Gandalf]

Third party

Which one has the powerbase, voter base, and infrastructure to offer a credible chance of getting to the top? As opposed to just, you know, talking about it or having debates with finger puppets(One might guess I don't like Nader. They'd be right.)?

Isn't that thinking cyclical?

People refuse to back third parties because they have no power. They have no power because nobody votes for them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Isn't that thinking cyclical?

People refuse to back third parties because they have no power. They have no power because nobody votes for them.

The only way for a 3rd Party to be so much as credible is if a sizable number of politicians from either or both parties break away and set up their own shop. Otherwise, it won't work.