Wow. The president basically got Paul Krugman to shut the eff up and applaud. I didn’t think it was possible. As for me, I did catch the speech but I was packing up to run to the doctor’s office, pharmacy, etc., and so I couldn’t really concentrate on the substance. Sylistically, it seemed like another Home Run of a speech. I didn’t disagree with anything I heard. I liked the president’s explanation of American/progressive values. I liked that he said he will not authorize another year of Bush’s tax cuts. I liked that he said that he won’t voucherize Medicare. I liked that he ripped Paul Ryan’s plan apart and cast it as an all-out assault on granny. I even liked that he took progressives to task for thinking we can do nothing about the debt, or that we can tackle the debt without doing some reform to entitlements.
One thing that is already obvious is that we have a shutdown situation on the 2012 budget. How is John Boehner’s House going to pass a bill that lets Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire? The president said he won’t back down.
In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can’t afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
I don’t think he will back down. I don’t think the Tea-Partying House will back down. So, get ready. The government will almost definitely shut down late this fall over the issue of Bush’s tax cuts for the top three percent.
Uh-oh. Now you’re just asking for commenters to start shouting at you.
Yes a rational plan by Obama and after Ryan put out his vouchers and more taxcuts dribble. People would be insane to support Ryan’s fucked up budget plan, its the same crap that created the debt crisis in the first place.
Now if Obama holds his ground and we stand behind him. There is a lot to lose here. The Repugs have upped the ante considerably the last few weeks.
I wouldn’t call Krugman’s post applause. I’d say he didn’t hate it, and was fairly relieved that it didn’t turn out like a lot of the trial balloons.
My two main criticisms:
1.) That he gave the speech at all
2.) That he refused to mention the word “Bush” when he talked about deficits. In fact, he not only didn’t mention our last president or his party by name, but he used the pronoun “we”.
I realize why he didn’t do what I would have done in number two, but I also don’t understand. Ryan and Cantor and the rest of the nutjobs are going to call him “too partisan” no matter what. Why not just call a spade a spade: this is Bush’s fault. It’s not enough to insinuate this.
In fact, that was their response:
Now the best part of the speech? He pulled no punches about Ryan’s bullshit plan. I saw that he almost laughed when he described it as unserious. That’s exactly the response he should have given. It’s neither serious or courageous, and I’m glad he said so with those exact words.
I also think he defined what it means to be a Democrat very well.
Giving the speech at all? I don’t get this. Of course he needed to. 1) We DO need to do something about our deficit just like we did in the 90s. 2)How could he possibly win reelection and keep a Republican out of the White House unless he gets the Independent vote. Whether or not liberals are concerned about the deficit, independents damn sure are. 3) You don’t gain independent votes by complaining about someone that they actually might have voted for (Bush).
Here’s a great video of Carney explaining Obama on this exact subject. Skip to 28:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gi1gqIqS1xE
The problem is, as usual, that this is the END POSITION for most Democrats, but it is the START POSITION for Obama. Thus, negotiation will result in giving up huge turf.
Even if this is where he wants to be, which may be the case, does this idiot not realize that you don’t start at the end in negotiation? You start with an exaggerated version of your position, to give up something.
What about Obama’s position will be given up?
I’d say we’re going to get Simpson-Bowles. We’re getting something, I think that much is clear. The irony in all of this is that when John brought up to the Blogger Call that Simpson-Bowles recommended a public option, they basically trailed off and repeated what Obama said.
Guys, we’re not idiotic press reporters who are going to coddle you. Do you think these half-ass responses do anything? Just say it’s dead and be done with it.
The speech was excellent and appropriate that it was in the afternoon given that it was 40 minutes long. I was glad that he finally gave a clear example of what the tax cut for the wealthy means under the Ryan “plan” (33 seniors paying $6,000 more a year in Medicare costs for just one millionaire’s tax benefit). That type of illustration was the one thing that connected Ross Perot with voters — his charts that clearly showed a money trail of whatever financial issue he was addressing.
One thing that Obama has going for him lately, that he hasn’t had all through his election and subsequently, is that the Democratic messaging in DC seems to have improved the last few months. While congressional democrats aren’t as good as Obama (either in a prepared statement or ad hoc) at least they seem to stick to a consistent message. In addition Jay Carney seems to be really good. I just posted his press conference from yesterday where he seems to be appropriately brief but intelligent, clear and thoughtful.
The recent other WH changes with Bill Daley and David Plouffe seems to have been really good too. I’m hopeful that Debbie Wasserman Schultz taking over for the DNC will be a HUGE improvement. She is terrific with the so-called political experts on the idiot box.
Still not as good as it can be but much better. On the side of Congress I credit Reid’s brilliant move of making Schumer in charge of Senate messaging. He is an SOB but he is our SOB and he isn’t afraid to get in there and fight.
Wasserman-Schulz is also good at this so I look forward to seeing what she can do
Extremely pleased with it. I’ve said before that if we can’t raise taxes, nothing else matters. Very pleased the president drew a line on that.
I wouldn’t call Krugman’s piece “applause”, but your catcall certainly mars an otherwise decent post.
Goodness knows Krugman’s NEVER been right about the economy. How DARE he question The Leader and his decisions HOW DARE HE!!!
If this is really the starting point… or if it’s simply laying out the points on which he’ll cave once the Children start holding their breath and pouting…
Given history, I cannot say as I’m confident–only guardedly hopeful. pop the popcorn, and prepare for theatre magnifique…
he was applauding the speech.
I’d ask him if he thinks Obama will fight for any of this but I’m pretty sure I know his answer.
I applauded at two points.
The first was when he said that we need a fundamental budget review of national security to meet our current situation. This is something that we urgently need. We haven’t fundamentally reviewed the national security institutions in 64 years. Think about that. And that was to enlarge them for the Cold War.
The second was when he described how he intended to cut costs in Medicare: simplify billing for providers in exchange for reductions in costs; a technocratic board to set those allowable costs; a outcomes monitoring effort to inform that board. Yes, that was part of the original healthcare bill. I think it passed. So he was essentially saying that he was going to use the ACA provisions to cut spending on Medicare and Medicaid.
The Social Security mention was kinda vague except for the “I will not leave it to the vagaries of Wall Street” language.
He praised Ryan for “having a plan” and for “being serious” before slamming that plan as a radical departure from a vision of America shared by most Americans.
On Social Security, he isn’t cutting it or privatizing it.
He had never said he would cut SS, that was on the blogs that it picked up steam.
I listened on the radio and felt calmer as he spoke.
He said he liked Simpson’s ideas and we should implement them. It’s the same thing as saying he favors cuts.
Funny, I listened to the speech and I didn’t hear him say that. If you are paraphrasing, you got it wrong.
Read the report. You don’t what’s in it.
He didn’t say it in this speech. He said it when Simpson and Bowles submitted their non-report report.
Raising the retirement age(which Bowles-Simpson suggested) is cutting benefits. So we’ll see.
I don’t mind raising the retirement age. I think it’s a workable approach. I would accelerate the schedule, and make it even older for initial benefits. Lifespans have changed very much since SS was initiated.
Take the average roofer. What was a modestly dangerous job in his thirties is insane when he reaches his late 60’s. Not to mention, the wear and tear on his body over all those years of hauling shingles up and down. The retirement age hits blue collar workers very hard. You can’t operate a jackhammer until you’re seventy. I, too, think that adding a year to the retirement age could be acceptable if it is part of a broad set of changes that includes a higher threshold of withholdings, but it’s not like it wouldn’t hurt people and it shouldn’t be considered lightly. Ideally, we would not raise the retirement age at all. Longetivity has nothing to do with it when we’re talking about hard laborers, and we should always keep them in the forefront of our considerations, because most of them are going to be relying on their Social Security.
After watching Biden’s nod during Obama’s speech yesterday I was envisoning 70 year old truck drivers nodding off on our freeways because Ryan’s Bill determines they have to keep working.
There are very few 65 YO roofers. Mostly they start their own roofing companies by then. Having spent a lot of time talking to roofers, carpenters, tile guys, etc etc etc over the last year, they move from doing the work to managing after a period. And mostly they do not carry the shingles up the ladder – it gets roof-top delivered. I’m not saying they all do this successfully, or at all, but I am saying that most of them try to do this. Even Kevin, the gutter guy I used, still (he is in his 50s) does some roof stuff, but he mostly is more of a contractor, and hires younger guys to do the grunt stuff. He was up on my garage fixing the screw-ups that I made when I shingled the roof. But most of the hard labor he hired to get done.
Yes, I agree, blue collar is a hard life. We have 3 choices – increase the ceiling on the SS tax (I favor this), doing a donut on SS tax (13% up to 100K, no additional until $300K, and then 2% all the way up, which I really favor), or raising the retirement age. I don’t see any change in the tax picture until we take Eric Cantor out to the re-education camp. So it’s raise the age for the moment.
Check out Paul Ryan’s 2012 opponent’s web site:
http://www.handsoffmygrandma.com/
Love this comment on tpm
You didn’t miss lunch.
You WERE lunch.
He took on the Republicans and seemed by far the most responsible in the debate.
I liked the fact that he didn’t say anything specific about SS, so I can hope his better campaign ideas are on the table.
By timing this speech after Ryan released his Bill where the Rep’s were talking cocky, sure they now owned the debate, Obama let them box themselves into a corner filled with hot air arrogance. They seemed to have been blindsided by this speech, in fact they’re still stammering.
What happened today was not just that he sounded like a Progressive but that he outlined the anti American tact the Rep’s had taken in such a way that even the denser folk could coffee shop talk about and agree with. He left very little daylight for Boehner’s TParty to get any liftoff.
I even liked that he took progressives to task for thinking we can do nothing about the debt, or that we can tackle the debt without doing some reform to entitlements.
Why even go here? Two things. We’ve given suggestions on curbing the debt. They are always brushed off as unserious. We can’t help that the national discourse is so stupid. Also, what Atrios always says. Are we always going to be forced to clean up after Republicans?
If I thought both sides could plausibly come together and make a deal, I would be more against the speech.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3469
There’s some pretty nasty discretionary/mandatory spending cuts proposed ($100B annually for twelve years), rather than risk middle class tax hikes. So that would be bad, which would only become worse through further compromise with the right.
But since a deal is unlikely, this was all about winning the rhetorical battle for the future. And on that, Obama did great. Overwhelming force and clarity of vision.
I agree with Booman that there will be gridlock over the budget, but that’s not the worst thing that could happen. Will there be a government shutdown, or maybe just continuing resolutions all the way to 2012? Given that there’s no way the republicans are going to pass his plan, he could say whatever he wants. So the big O-man has kick-started his reelection campaign.
It will take a strong campaign to run directly at Ryan. Basically, we have 2 visions of America. In Ryan’s vision, old people and people who have disabilities get a nice can opener, 3 cans of catfood (Friskies or Purina, and not both), and a box of band-aids. On Obama’s, we rethink and reduce benefits.
We need to frame this debate. The republicans have handed us the weapon. Will the Democrats engage?
“The government will almost definitely shut down late this fall over the issue of Bush’s tax cuts for the top three percent.”
Surely.
But let a couple hundred Tea Partier on the Mall chant “shut it down” to protect tax cuts for billionaires while 800,000 middle class public employees get furloughed and gov’t check stop going out.
Go ahead. Try it.
I think this could easily rally a good chunk of the center into realizing the lunacy and corruption they’ve been buying from the Right.