The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get that the US has to tread cautiously since Egypt is a relatively peaceful and pro-western, strategically aligned semi-partner, and we don't know who/what would be replacing Mubarak but we seem to be falling short of our democratic ideals -- reminds me of the Latin and South America dictators that we had to do business. The devil you know ...

More like it (after 10+ days).

Obama signals displeasure with Mubarak's move - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

"The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity."

Another one of those events that we'll be reading in the history books and the after effects. To be fair to Obama, I think this is pretty much how GWB would be playing it also.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not a legal person, there seems to be good arguments for either side. I guess this is why the Supremes get paid the big bucks. I'm rooting for constitutionality.

It's sort of a tricky issue. Technically we can't force someone to buy it just by being alive, but we also have laws in place that don't allow us to turn down medical services. Doesn't seem like you can have one without the other.

[Edward64]

Don't think Obama would be too worried about Ron Paul in 2012 but Mitt would be a good contender.
Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC -- Again - FoxNews.com

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote.

The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 GOP candidate who is expected to run again, came in second place with 23 percent of the vote. Romney won the previous three presidential straw polls before Paul snapped his streak last year.

[JPhillips]

I don't see a Mormon who advocated a mandate winning the GOP primary.

[DaddyTorgo]

Mitt's a horrible candidate. As JPhillips said, he's Mormon, and he also didn't just ADVOCATE a mandate, he signed a mandate. Add to that that the guy has ZERO core beliefs - he'll flip-flop on anything and say anything to get elected (as he did here in MA) - he'll drive away the hard-right with the mormonism and the mandate, and independents won't trust him at his word because he's proven to say whatever in order to get elected.

[JPhillips]

Most of the yearly RNC valentines are uninspired, but this one gave me a laugh.

[sterlingice]

SI

[gstelmack]

$1.65 trillion deficit in a $3.7 trillion budget? Are these people INSANE?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

$1.65 trillion deficit in a $3.7 trillion budget? Are these people INSANE?

But the Republican leadership are proposing to cut almost $100 billion!!! (heavy sarcasm intended)

Who would want a kook like Ron Paul that actually has ideas involving massive cuts including the military? Empires throughout world history always thrived on more and more military and endless money printing!!!

[panerd]

Dola:

But at least they are coming together on important issues!!!!

Boehner says facts show Obama a Christian, citizen - Yahoo! News

WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!!

[ISiddiqui]

Well apparently a good deal of Republicans are crazy on those issues, so its good to see Republican leadership disassociate from that nutty faction.

[JPhillips]

Unfortunately a good portion of the GOP gives a fuck. At least ten states have birther bills pending. It's about time the GOP leadership put the crazies back in the closet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's about time the nation put the liberal lunatics out to pasture.

Fixed that for you.

[panerd]

Seems like a good distraction to get their supporters debating whether or not he believes in baby Jesus while they do absolutely nothing they were elected to do. It's like someone who owes $8 million dollars on a $100,000 house taking out a new mortgage for $20 million but cutting back on their cable package and turning the heat down two degrees. God I hope a third party becomes viable at some point in this country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

... but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

And still isn't.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And still isn't.

You're right as long as the banks, military industrial complex, and corporations can convince the GOP sheep that he isn't a viable candidate we will get 4 more years of Bush/Obama in 2012.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure what Boehner answering questions on Meet the Press has to do with cutting the deficit. I'm sure in the 5 minutes they spent discussing that on the show he could've found $1.65 trillion in cuts, got it passed and signed by the president, chilled back with a cigar and called it a day.

Your outrage here is on the same ridiculous level of the "OMG the economy is failing and Obama is filling out March Madness brackets!!!" nonsense.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure what Boehner answering questions on Meet the Press has to do with cutting the deficit. I'm sure in the 5 minutes they spent discussing that on the show he could've found $1.65 trillion in cuts, got it passed and signed by the president, chilled back with a cigar and called it a day.

Your outrage here is on the same ridiculous level of the "OMG the economy is failing and Obama is filling out March Madness brackets!!!" nonsense.

Or they could have spent 5 more minutes asking him a fucking meaningful question but you're right I was dying to know how Boehner felt about whether Obama is a secret NWO pawn sent in from Kenya to destroy the economy. (Seems like both the GOP and Democrats didn't need any help with that anyways)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You're right as long as the banks, military industrial complex, and corporations can convince the GOP sheep that he isn't a viable candidate we will get 4 more years of Bush/Obama in 2012.

I'd take the first 4 of Bush II over Paul's lunatic proposals in a heartbeat.

I'd also take the second 4, but that's kind of like choosing between ipecac & strychnine, still an easy call but neither is pleasant.

For every time Paul is right about something - say, immigration - he's so dead wrong on 3 other things that he's probably more disturbing a figure to me as President than the current fence-post turtle.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd take the first 4 of Bush II over Paul's lunatic proposals in a heartbeat.

I'd also take the second 4, but that's kind of like choosing between ipecac & strychnine, still an easy call but neither is pleasant.

For every time Paul is right about something - say, immigration - he's so dead wrong on 3 other things that he's probably more disturbing a figure to me as President than the current fence-post turtle.

Obama is less disturbing than Paul? You are quite the conservative!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Obama is less disturbing than Paul? You are quite the conservative!

You forget, for as fiscally concerned as I may be, I'm far more conservative on other matters. I'm a social conservative foremost, he's far from it (and even manages to be 180 from me on my one non-traditional belief there, i.e. aborition). I'm probably roughly equal parts on fiscal & "other", things such as foreign policy.

His positions on drugs, national security, and foreign policy are consistently even worse than what we've seen from Obama to date.

Again, for every time he's right, he's so completely & utterly wrong on multiple other points that he's as unpalatable a candidate as I can imagine. Which is to be expected really, I'm a pretty well established authoritarian & view his version of "libertarianism" as little more than anarchy.

[RainMaker]

Fuck you Ron Paul for making me agree politically with Jon.

[larrymcg421]

I'm in agreement in a sort of mirror image way from Jon. I prefer most Republicans to Paul. I'd vote for McCain/Romney/Huckabee over Paul.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Or they could have spent 5 more minutes asking him a fucking meaningful question but you're right I was dying to know how Boehner felt about whether Obama is a secret NWO pawn sent in from Kenya to destroy the economy. (Seems like both the GOP and Democrats didn't need any help with that anyways)

There are alot of Americans who question Obama's religion and birthplace. Is it stupid and ridiculous? Yes. But those people are there, and they make up a pretty good % of Boehner's base. That makes it a worthwhile question to ask him in a Meet the Press interview.

I think it's just as ridiculous that same sex couples cannot marry. It shouldn't matter one bit. But it does matter because many people diagree. That makes it a worthwhile news topic.

And I just find the whole idea ridiculous that a politician doing one thing means he can't be doing the other, as if Boehner shouldn't be doing any single thing other than reducing the deficit 24/7.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You forget, for as fiscally concerned as I may be, I'm far more conservative on other matters. I'm a social conservative foremost, he's far from it (and even manages to be 180 from me on my one non-traditional belief there, i.e. aborition). I'm probably roughly equal parts on fiscal & "other", things such as foreign policy.

His positions on drugs, national security, and foreign policy are consistently even worse than what we've seen from Obama to date.

Again, for every time he's right, he's so completely & utterly wrong on multiple other points that he's as unpalatable a candidate as I can imagine. Which is to be expected really, I'm a pretty well established authoritarian & view his version of "libertarianism" as little more than anarchy.

Ron Paul actually seems to be very conservative socially he just doesn't feel it is government's job to force other people with a gun to have the same stances.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Ron Paul actually seems to be very conservative socially

Other than abortion, I'm having a tough time finding him on the record as being conservative about much of anything. Gay adoption maybe, but certainly not crime/punishment nor drugs nor DADT (which he gave lip service to but then voted opposite).

he just doesn't feel it is government's job to force other people with a gun to have the same stances.

{shrug} We largely disagree on that point, back to the whole authoritarian thing.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Other than abortion, I'm having a tough time finding him on the record as being conservative about much of anything. Gay adoption maybe, but certainly not crime/punishment nor drugs nor DADT (which he gave lip service to but then voted opposite).



{shrug} We largely disagree on that point, back to the whole authoritarian thing.

I don't think you are following me. He is very conservative in his personal life. He has all the "family" values that Republicans preach about. He just doesn't feel like it is the role of the federal government to not allow gays to marry or to fine people for smoking marijuana or to invade other countries to instill our values.

As a side note: I don't recall him giving any lip service to DADT. He was one of the only Republicans for a while that wanted to repeal it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There are alot of Americans who question Obama's religion and birthplace. Is it stupid and ridiculous? Yes. But those people are there, and they make up a pretty good % of Boehner's base. That makes it a worthwhile question to ask him in a Meet the Press interview.

I think it's just as ridiculous that same sex couples cannot marry. It shouldn't matter one bit. But it does matter because many people diagree. That makes it a worthwhile news topic.

And I just find the whole idea ridiculous that a politician doing one thing means he can't be doing the other, as if Boehner shouldn't be doing any single thing other than reducing the deficit 24/7.

I follow you here and concede your point that there are many issues the media can ask questions about though I contend the media throws 99% softballs. (they may ask a tough question but when the politician gives the standard partisan answer they never follow-up with a question of why or how) I would disagree though about your last sentance, his number #1 (and pretty much only priority) should be getting our deficit in line. But what do I know half of my friends and coworkers have ridiculous credit card and personal debt, why should be expect anything different from these guys?

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think you are following me. He is very conservative in his personal life. He has all the "family" values that Republicans preach about. He just doesn't feel like it is the role of the federal government to not allow gays to marry or to fine people for smoking marijuana or to invade other countries to instill our values.

Right, and I'm pretty sure that if Ron Paul was a state legislator, he'd be pretty huge into instilling those conservative social values in the state law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think you are following me. He is very conservative in his personal life. He has all the "family" values that Republicans preach about. He just doesn't feel like it is the role of the federal government to not allow gays to marry or to fine people for smoking marijuana or to invade other countries to instill our values.

His unwillingness to support those through law, in the absence of adequate morality on a national level, is in direct opposition to the support of those values. In short, "live & let live" doesn't cut it, not by a long shot.

As a side note: I don't recall him giving any lip service to DADT. He was one of the only Republicans for a while that wanted to repeal it.

Perhaps I've overstated it but "I think the current policy is a decent policy" is a long way from voting to overturn it too. He doubletalked his way through the rest of his answer, almost certainly knowing that given his opening statement his follow up of "if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with" would be interpreted as at least supporting DADT since all homosexual behavior in the military IS disruptive (along the conservative viewpoint).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think you are following me. He is very conservative in his personal life. He has all the "family" values that Republicans preach about. He just doesn't feel like it is the role of the federal government to not allow gays to marry or to fine people for smoking marijuana or to invade other countries to instill our values.

As a side note: I don't recall him giving any lip service to DADT. He was one of the only Republicans for a while that wanted to repeal it.

Yeah, but his gay marriage position, for example, isn't really that liberal. He wants to remove federal court jurisdiction and return the matter to the states. This would be devastating. For example, if Paul had his way, Prop 8 would be on the books and there would be no way to challenge since the CA SCOTUS upheld the initiative.

Paul's position is not much better than most Republicans. So he won't introduce a federal amendment banning gay marriage and he'll support the DADT repeal, but he will allow gays to continue to be treated like second class citizens under the guise of supporting states rights. I can't stomach that, and that's why I'll never support Paul.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Paul's position is not much better than most Republicans. So he won't introduce a federal amendment banning gay marriage and he'll support the DADT repeal, but he will allow gays to continue to be treated like second class citizens under the guise of supporting states rights. I can't stomach that, and that's why I'll never support Paul.

I don't think it's a guise. I think his feelings about the federal government are stronger than his feelings about gay marriage. Most politicans/citizens tend to group their opinions on social issues and government structure together (they meld the latter to fit the former) - I would give Paul credit for being one of the rare few that doesn't, one of the rare minds in Washington that is willing (or able) to consider those things independently of each other.

[larrymcg421]

That was probably a poor choice of words. My point was essentially that while Paul presents himself as being different than Christian conservatives on this issue, his policies would still be bad for gay rights.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think you are following me. He is very conservative in his personal life. He has all the "family" values that Republicans preach about. He just doesn't feel like it is the role of the federal government to not allow gays to marry or to fine people for smoking marijuana or to invade other countries to instill our values.

As a side note: I don't recall him giving any lip service to DADT. He was one of the only Republicans for a while that wanted to repeal it.

He may be a conservative in his life, but he's a libertarian politically. Jon is not a Libertarian and many Republicans aren't either.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

But the Republican leadership are proposing to cut almost $100 billion!!! (heavy sarcasm intended)

Who would want a kook like Ron Paul that actually has ideas involving massive cuts including the military? Empires throughout world history always thrived on more and more military and endless money printing!!!

I'm all for cutting military spending massively. It's Ron Paul's other crazy ideas that I can't get behind.

[lungs]

I guess this is as good of a place as any, but Wisconsin's new governor has proposed legislation that would strip the right of state employees to collectively baragain their benefits. Wages can still be collectively bargained, but any increase is capped to inflation.

Oh, I forgot to mention that Walker has exempted unions that supported his election campaign from this legislation.

edit: That might be misleading, not all police and fire fighting unions endorsed Walker.

Anyway, this is causing quite the firestorm in the state with Walker threatening to call up the National Guard if state workers go on strike.

[JediKooter]

So the National Guard is going to be working the DMV?

[albionmoonlight]

Andrew Sullivan, one of President Obama's biggest and most visible conservative* supporters, Does. Not. Want. the President's budget:

The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut.

But the core challenge of this time is not the cost of discretionary spending. Obama knows this; everyone knows this. The crisis is the cost of future entitlements and defense, about which Obama proposes nothing. Yes, there's some blather. But Obama will not risk in any way any vulnerability on taxes to his right or entitlement spending to his left. He convened a deficit commission in order to throw it in the trash. If I were Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles, I'd feel duped. And they were duped. All of us who took Obama's pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.

The cynical political calculation is obvious and it is well put by Yglesias and Sprung. If Obama backs Bowles-Simpson, the GOP will savage him for the tax hikes, while also scaring the wits out of the elderly on Medicare. The Democratic left - just look at HuffPo today - will have a cow. Indeed, if Obama backs anything, the GOP will automatically oppose him. He has to wait for a bipartisan agreement which he can then gently push ahead. But that's exactly why we are in this situation today. Because no president has had the balls to deal with it, and George W. Bush made it all insanely worse. Sprung says the proposal on corporate taxes is a trial balloon. He argues that:

Corporate income taxes account for about 12% of the Federal government's revenue. Obama's core premise for reforming them is structurally similar to the Bowles-Simpson commission's approach to personal tax reform: reduce targeted tax breaks while lowering the overall rate, currently at 35%.

And that's fine if you think we have plenty of time. But in a mere nine years, entitlements will account for 64 percent of all federal spending. And Obama just punted on his promise to cut Medicare payments to doctors, as pledged under Obamacare as a core part of the case that health insurance reform would cut the deficit. So congrats, Megan. We can chalk that up as a cynical diversion (even though Obama pledges to find savings elsewhere in the Medicare budget to make up for this lie - a promise we now have no reason to trust or believe).

There is some hope, as David Brooks has noted. Those who want to save the useful things that government alone can do, while pulling back from the fiscal brink, have to

"get behind an effort now being hatched by a group of courageous senators: Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mike Crapo and Kent Conrad. These public heroes have been leading an effort to write up the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report as legislation to serve as the beginning for a serious effort to get our house in order. They’ve been meeting with 20 to 40 of their colleagues to push this along."

They have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

*Yes, we could get into a whole side conversation about whether Andrew Sullivan is a conservative. Instead, let's just agree that it depends on your definition of conservative and leave it at that.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

To me, the President's proposed budget has several critical flaws:

(1) Practically, it does nothing to actually reduce the long term deficit or the debt in any meaningful way.

(2) Politically, it buys into the myth that the budget can be balanced without raising taxes, cutting SS, cutting Medicare, or cutting defense. Bullshit. And by pretending that it is not bullshit, you add to the idea that we could balance the budget if only some guy in Cleveland somewhere that you've never met just found a job and got off welfare. This myth helps the GOP in the long term much better than the Democrats.

(3) Related to point #2, it gives the GOP a short term opening to be the party of actual fiscal responsibility. Now, nothing that I have seen from them makes me think that they will take the opening. But it does give them that chance.

(4) I'll just say again, it does not address the actual problem facing the country.

[Marc Vaughan]

Andrew Sullivan, one of President Obama's biggest and most visible conservative* supporters, Does. Not. Want. the President's budget: ....

Thats the first time I've EVER seen an American politician even mention that the defense spending is part of the problem - kudos to him ...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

To me, the President's proposed budget has several critical flaws:

(1) Practically, it does nothing to actually reduce the long term deficit or the debt in any meaningful way.

(2) Politically, it buys into the myth that the budget can be balanced without raising taxes, cutting SS, cutting Medicare, or cutting defense. Bullshit. And by pretending that it is not bullshit, you add to the idea that we could balance the budget if only some guy in Cleveland somewhere that you've never met just found a job and got off welfare. This myth helps the GOP in the long term much better than the Democrats.

(3) Related to point #2, it gives the GOP a short term opening to be the party of actual fiscal responsibility. Now, nothing that I have seen from them makes me think that they will take the opening. But it does give them that chance.

(4) I'll just say again, it does not address the actual problem facing the country.

You are right and for some reason neither party can get past (2). To steal from President Clinton it is the defense budget stupid.

I will add...
(5) People re-electing politicians from both parties who have never done anything in the past to fix these problems do not address the actual problem facing the country.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats the first time I've EVER seen an American politician even mention that the defense spending is part of the problem - kudos to him ...

Hate to bring up Ron Paul over and over but there are actually plenty. You just haven't seen them because the media (who in some cases have outside interests in the military) doesn't ever interview them.

Here are the ones who voted against the Afganistan war last year...

Campbell, Duncan, Johnson (IL), Jones, Paul. These are the Democrats: Baldwin, Capuano, Chu, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Crowley, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Doyle, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Jackson (IL), Jackson Lee (TX), Johnson E. B., Kagen, Kucinich, Larson (CT), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Maffei, Maloney, Markey (MA), McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller George, Nadler (NY), Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Sánchez Linda T., Sanchez Loretta, Schakowsky, Serrano, Speier, Stark, Stupak, Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Welch, Woolsey.

[JPhillips]

As long as there's no possibility of the two parties agreeing on a serious budget compromise there's no chance of a budget that gets substantially closer to balanced. We can talk all we want about courage and leadership, but if Obama submits a budget that cuts the deficit in half he'll get killed. The Dems won't go along with it and the GOP will run against the spending cuts.

The only way we solve the deficit is if enough people in both parties agree that any realistic solution is going to be a mix of cuts and tax increases.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats the first time I've EVER seen an American politician even mention that the defense spending is part of the problem - kudos to him ...

Andrew Sullivan is not a politician. Politicians proposing defense cuts get crucified as being unpatriotic and lose elections. See the flack Kerry received from slimeball Zell Miller , who claimed that Kerry wanted to arm the troops with spitballs.

[molson]

And how about the future revenue projections? It appears the budget assumes we're about to enter a spectacular boom period over the next 5 years - a 40% increase in total revenue.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As long as there's no possibility of the two parties agreeing on a serious budget compromise there's no chance of a budget that gets substantially closer to balanced. We can talk all we want about courage and leadership, but if Obama submits a budget that cuts the deficit in half he'll get killed. The Dems won't go along with it and the GOP will run against the spending cuts.

The only way we solve the deficit is if enough people in both parties agree that any realistic solution is going to be a mix of cuts and tax increases.

Funny but I thought they were all elected by the public. Hard to blame the politicians if they can get away with doing nothing and keep getting reelected. I do understand you are saying that in reality this will never happen but I guess I say we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

I will use your Obama example. How about he cuts the deficit in half and then gets killed? Wouldn't he be doing it for his country instead of doing it so his party can get relected? It's time for some policitians with some balls. I know you aren't a big fan of Rand Paul but I have to say I have been impressed so far.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Funny but I thought they were all elected by the public. Hard to blame the politicians if they can get away with doing nothing and keep getting reelected. I do understand you are saying that in reality this will never happen but I guess I say we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

I will use your Obama example. How about he cuts the deficit in half and then gets killed? Wouldn't he be doing it for his country instead of doing it so his party can get relected? It's time for some policitians with some balls. I know you aren't a big fan of Rand Paul but I have to say I have been impressed so far.

What's the point of proposing to cut defense in half when it won't happen? Even if by some miracle it did happen the election in 2012 would just put things back the way they were. Balls don't matter much if in the end you haven't accomplished anything.

I'm not really happy with the timidity of the budget. I'd like to see a big push to get a tax increase/cut compromise, but the budget probably isn't the way to make that happen. It would be too easy to pass the cuts and not the tax increases and dare Obama to veto. Somehow there needs to be an agreement to pass both cuts and tax increases together or it won't happen until we're truly in a crisis.

edit: I should add that of course it's the public's fault. The major issues the GOP ran on last year were opposition to Medicare cuts, tax cuts and a balanced budget and they won a landslide.

[molson]

To be fair, I don't think Obama is the guy anyone, including his supporters, thought would be the one to finally get serious about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility.

[albionmoonlight]

The buzz now is that the President and the GOP leaders are working on actual budget reform behind the scenes, but that these are super-secret meetings so that they can actually get work done without the media disrupting things.

Meetings so secret, I guess, that no one can really disprove that they are happening. Convenient, that.

The idea of super-secret meetings strikes me, really, as wishful thinking. The people writing the articles just cannot believe that Boehner, McConnell, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. are so selfish/obtuse that they would really let the economy crash on the rocks rather than tell Americans the truth.

Well . . . based on what do we believe that? I have not seen anything to make me think that we have enough adults in the government to lead the people where we need to (but do not want to) go.

Hell, I'd love to be coming back to this thread in three months saying "I was wrong. The President and the GOP really have worked together to help strengthen the Republic, and God bless them for it." But I doubt it.

Sad, really.

[JediKooter]

Especially considering one of Obama's campaign promises was more transparency.