I am so tired of wingnut logic. The president “railed six times…against a tax break that exists in law today because of his signature.” What is he talking about? He’s talking about an accelerated depreciation provision for “corporate jets” contained in Obama’s Recovery Act. The tax break for fat cats was in existence prior to the stimulus bill, and the Recovery Act merely extended it. So, yes, the present existence of this stupid and needless tax break for ludicrously rich people is the president’s responsibility.
And what is the president saying? He’s saying he doesn’t want that responsibility anymore because we can’t afford it and it isn’t fair to cut social services and research and development and money for transportation and schools, and keep a moronic, senseless, and basically immoral tax break for corporate bigwigs.
So, what difference does it make that he signed off on this ridiculous tax giveaway two years ago? He wants it to go away now. That’s the only point that matters.
Obama had to leave that provision in to get the bill passed. That was then, this is now.
It’s always the same whining and moaning about Obama.
He is doing well when he upsets Republicans about these issues and the public gets to hear the arguements.
Sure, but why did the President think this gesture towards faux-populism would help his messaging strategy? I think what we’re seeing is Obama trying to pivot, albeit slowly and unsteadily, from his embrace of tax cuts, budget cuts, bank bailouts, entitlement cuts, salary freezes for federal workers, tackling government waste, and confidence fairies, as the only possible things to do in an economic crisis. Obama’s failure to master the politics of economic crisis and counter the GOP’s hostage taking and obstructionist style of governance gives him few strategic and tactical options. I appreciate you doing the yeoman’s work of setting wingnuts straight on the nuances of our tax code, but its all sort of irrelevant. We have 9.1% unemployment and we’re dangerously close to losing our ability to borrow money at criminally low interest rates. Both of those are, even set against the long history of this country, really big deals. I hope our President has more up his sleeve than grandstanding about corporate jet depreciation rates.
I don’t know if they’re right, but the WH feels extremely confident that they’ve framed this is a way that is just brutal for the Republicans. There is a whole level going on below the surface of the posturing. The jets are kind of a jab to the face or a warning shot. It’s just tit-for-tat stuff for our consumption.
I hope they’re right. I’m just skeptical that the advisors that got us into this mess (basically anyone who thought pivoting from jobs to austerity in the middle of the biggest recession in 70 years was a winning strategy) are the same guys that can get us out of it. I’m also not sure that Obama and his team have really figured out how to handle the unprecedented levels of GOP obstructionism, other than by capitulation.
Once again, they could very well be wrong, but they do not believe Boehner’s bluff at all. Not even a little bit. They’re not even focused on an actual shutdown. I don’t mean they don’t have some plans, but that’s just not what they’re thinking about. They’re convinced they’ve cornered him.
It’s why I am trying not to get too exercised by the rhetoric on either side.
Bluffing or not, Boehner’s already walked away from a massive WH proposed austerity package which cuts entitlements and barely touches revenues. So he’ll get an even better deal when this finally gets sorted. But I’m worried the WH strategy is to just give the GOP more or less what they want and call it a day. That’s not “calling someone’s bluff,” that’s called capitulation. And maybe that’s the rational strategy given the political landscape, maybe its enough to get reelected, and maybe if Obama gets another 4 years, the GOP will finally step away from the ledge and reengage as a loyal opposition rather than hostage takers turned legislators. All this stuff is above my pay grade, but it’s very worrying.
“a massive WH proposed austerity package which cuts entitlements and barely touches revenues”
barely touches revenues? Link please. I didn’t think the WH position had been laid out in any detail.
going off reports that the Biden led negotiations fell apart at something like 20% from revenues and the rest from spending cuts, including entitlements. Are you saying that you expect the final deal to be better than that?
Don’t know. Not even sure there’s going to be a deal.
The thing is, Boehner has to go to the Democrats for his votes. He doesn’t have a choice.
Shouldn’t the question be, cornered him so as to do what? What is the result of “cornering him?” What do Democrats even want anymore? Just a pure political win, or is there some policy strategy that I’m missing?
I feel like Washington has gone and lost itself up its own asshole again. Oh well, here’s to 2013, I guess. And our majestically fucked up Senate…sigh.
I do think they’ve framed it right. I don’t think Democrats will retake the House in 2012, but I think in the longer-term Republicans are giving the game away with this idiocy. What they must do for short-term electoral gain has very negative long-term consequences for them as a party.
Obviously, I hope I’m not wrong about the long-term, and would love to see Democrats take the House next year.
This one is going to the wire–or beyond. And there are a bunch of constitutional scholars arguing about whether the 14th amendment, section 4 means that Obama can blow off debt limits and operate on what Congress has passed.
It is in Obama’s and the country’s interest for him to be able to make the necessary financial arrangement without Congress’s posturing. Whether that’s how he plays this round is something to watch.
Obama tends to play his strategy as a closer instead of playing pre-emptively. And he depends on results not speeches to really sway the public.
So we wait for the results of this detour-into-debt-discussion gambit. Will there finally be a public backlash at the arrogance of the Republicans? No doubt, that is the result the White House is counting on by not being so high profile themselves.
Can Obama play Herbert Hoover in a first term and FDR in a second? That would be quite a pivot. But if the political environment changes, it could happen.
I think the Hoover analogy is apt. But he didn’t get a 2nd term, precisely because he was Hoover, not FDR. I’m worried though things will get so bad that the GOP will get their FDR in 2012- someone to undo the welfare state and fully transition us back to the 19th century. Every election since 2000 really has each been the most important election of our lifetime, and 2012 will be no different.
But then the problem is that the GOP doesn’t have and FDR, do they? All they have is a Warren Harding in multiple different forms or a George W. Bush.
The importance of the 2012 election will not be in the presidency; it will be in the Congress. And the state legislatures, and the governors, and the secretaries of state, and the elected state supreme court judges. For a lot of those offices a little bit of organization and turnout can go a long way. And if done widely can contribute to the Presidential totals in a strategic way.
The six-figure DC strategists are blind to this possibility, because of their focus on media and message. I wonder how much that focus is determined by other financial considerations that the interest of the candidate.
The problem with Hoover/FDR analogies is that as awful as things are the crisis did not reach Depression proportions and did not as a result provide the opportunity for a response on an FDR scale.
I am unemployed, so when I say things are not actually getting worse, my boat hasn’t yet risen. That said, the big issue is that things are getting better very slowly and the fear–completely correct–is that we are looking at a longer-term stagnation with higher unemployment as a norm.