Some mad hornets

[$tevie]

Well, of course he is. I just find this move incredibly irritating and wrong headed.

[max]

so disappointing....

[Ted King]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
It was a bit risky on Obama's part to put the cuts to Social Security's budget in his overall budget, but I'm sure there were well thought out political motives for doing so. It seems plausible that one of those motives is that he can now anchor himself on the position that he has given on the holy grail of entitlements so it's time for the Republicans to give on their holy grail of no taxes increases. Staking out such a position probably won't make any difference to the Republicans in the House this year but it could give Obama a good "intransigent Republicans" card to play in the 2014 elections. I think he may be trying to gather up as many as those cards as he can.

Oh, that is the same crap he pulled for his entire first term. If he can't figure out that all that does is alienate his base, without making any new friends to make up for them, then I simply don't know what to say.
Some small differences compared to the past may be more significant than they appear. Obama has not put Social Security reductions like these into his budgets before, he's offered them as concessions in negotiations trying to get a compromise with Republicans. Of course, ultimately even the submission of a budget by a president is only a kind of negotiating tactic, but I think actually putting it in the budget may have symbolic value if he goes all in to make the pitch that it is the Republicans that are the main obstacle to a compromise agreement, not him. Why do I suspect he may be getting things in order to go all in now? Because he might as well shoot the last couple of years of his presidency in the head in terms of getting any legislative agenda he may want if the Republicans keep the House in 2014 and especially so if the Republicans take over the Senate in that election. A good way to make sure that doesn't happen is to get people riled up. Over Republican obstruction on getting a compromise on budget issues. Over Republican obstruction of gun laws. Over Republican obstruction of women's issues. And if the Tea Party Republicans in House dig in their heels, over obstruction of an immigration compromise. To name a few. But, maybe the past is a near-perfect look into the future as far as his approach to this and he isn't bold enough to go for it. I guess we'll see.

[Speedy]

It's the economy, stupid. The Republicans will do all they can to sabotage the economy and just enough folks will buy into their lies so they get total control of Congress. And in 2016, the presidency.

[$tevie]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
[quote=Ted King]
It was a bit risky on Obama's part to put the cuts to Social Security's budget in his overall budget, but I'm sure there were well thought out political motives for doing so. It seems plausible that one of those motives is that he can now anchor himself on the position that he has given on the holy grail of entitlements so it's time for the Republicans to give on their holy grail of no taxes increases. Staking out such a position probably won't make any difference to the Republicans in the House this year but it could give Obama a good "intransigent Republicans" card to play in the 2014 elections. I think he may be trying to gather up as many as those cards as he can.

Oh, that is the same crap he pulled for his entire first term. If he can't figure out that all that does is alienate his base, without making any new friends to make up for them, then I simply don't know what to say.
Some small differences compared to the past may be more significant than they appear. Obama has not put Social Security reductions like these into his budgets before, he's offered them as concessions in negotiations trying to get a compromise with Republicans. Of course, ultimately even the submission of a budget by a president is only a kind of negotiating tactic, but I think actually putting it in the budget may have symbolic value if he goes all in to make the pitch that it is the Republicans that are the main obstacle to a compromise agreement, not him. Why do I suspect he may be getting things in order to go all in now? Because he might as well shoot the last couple of years of his presidency in the head in terms of getting any legislative agenda he may want if the Republicans keep the House in 2014 and especially so if the Republicans take over the Senate in that election. A good way to make sure that doesn't happen is to get people riled up. Over Republican obstruction on getting a compromise on budget issues. Over Republican obstruction of gun laws. Over Republican obstruction of women's issues. And if the Tea Party Republicans in House dig in their heels, over obstruction of an immigration compromise. To name a few. But, maybe the past is a near-perfect look into the future as far as his approach to this and he isn't bold enough to go for it. I guess we'll see.
It can't work with this issue because everyone has already forgotten Paul Ryan and thinks Obama invented this idea. And by "everyone" I mean the wondeful Americans who gave the GOP the House in the first place.

[Dennis S]

Where does Harry Reid stand on this? He can pretty-much keep it from happening, can't he?

[max]

It is all Bush's fault....

[OWC Jamie]

His "base" was so seriously handicapped and alienated he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of re-election.
What a crock.