Tuesday, December 07, 2010
The Obama deal:
While I'm not impressed with it, perhaps everybody needs to learn more about how it came about before rendering a judgment. How did the negotiations go? Who was asking for what? What did each side concede, when, and why? Why was Congress out of the loop this time and the White House engaged - the exact opposite of the health care legislative process?
What started out as a simple unemployment extension + keep the middle class cuts
in exchange for keeping the upper income cuts
, suddenly got much more complex. What I want to know is:
- Where did the cut 2% of FICA taxes come from? That would appear to be something that could be done separately (with support from both parties, even though it carries the risk of becoming permanent and weakening Social Security).
- How did the bargaining on the estate tax go? The Washington Post advocated going to the 2009 schedule of $3.5 million exempt and a 45% rate - which was the lowest of the 10 year period (not counting 2010's no tax). That position, keep the 2009 schedule for estate taxes was considered to be the Republican position by many. How did the Obama deal end up being more generous? It's a mystery.
The deal was reached in a surprisingly short time and feels rushed and overstuffed. Almost as if by bringing in many disparate elements, it becomes harder to critique it - because the complexity makes it harder to assess its value (for Democrats and Republicans).
Won't the GOP House soon have control over the Debt Ceiling?
How on earth will a deal based completely on borrowed money ever come to fruition with a GOP willing to hold the country hostage to get what they want?
I feel like I'm missing something, because no one's really talking about it.
Is it better to let the tax cuts expire, so the revenue coming in will buffer the need to make cuts? Or is it better to do what Obama proposes, which I can't fathom working, because I know the GOP will demand their pound of flesh or let the country fall into default.
I think the plan is to butcher the bureaucracy, or simply furlough non-essential government workers until the books balance.
Interesting ... Obama trusted Reid and Pelosi and they totally ran him over and screwed him and the party by passing a health care bill that did nothing that Barack Obama promised the public it would do, but he signed it anyway, and the result was a bloodbath at midterms.
Now we get this deal, which seems to be cut entirely between Obama and the Republicans. The Republicans obviously like the deal; they seem a bit surprised and overwhelmed that Obama put so much on the table. Obama only needs a handful of Democrats to go along with it, and it sounds like the bill is going to be straightforward and not have the sort of side-effect blowback of Obamacare.
My primary thesis is that Barack Obama is a lazy man who is in over his head. The only thing he has ever been able to apply himself to is self-aggrandizement. This meant that he was perfectly suited to be the subject of a presidential campaign, a job he took with relish.
When it came time to actually govern, he has proven not to have the management skills and tools necessary for the job. In short, who would have ever thought that someone with no executive experience would make a poor Chief Executive?
But here's the thing. The Republicans have signaled that they are going to try a new legislative approach. Instead of huge, thousand page bills, they are going to split the usual monster bills -- appropriations in particular -- into tiny bills and send them to the Senate in piecemeal. This is going to make it very hard for the Democrats to sneak any of their pet projects into the bills.
But this may be just the sort of legislative strategy that appeals to Barack Obama. Short, simple bills that are very easy to understand and don't tire him out intellectually. The funny thing is that Barack Obama may find it easier and more comfortable working with House Republicans, than with the Reid/Pelosi Democrats.
I don't think he's demonstrated any particular Democratic Party principles. His political principles come from Chicago, where the primary rule is to sniff out who holds the real power, and get on their side. If Barack Obama follows his political principles, he may just abandon the Congressional Democrats entirely and simply work with the Republicans.
It depends on how well the incoming Republicans handle the situation, but this is a very promising sign. Oh how the heads will explode on the left if Obama effectively flips conservative because that's the way the new wind blows. They trusted this guy. For what reason, I have no idea.
Pretty long winded jms. You should look for words and phrases the mean the same as some of your long ones.
For example "My primary thesis is that Barack Obama is a lazy man who is in over his head. The only thing he has ever been able to apply himself to is self-aggrandizement."
Your type used to use the word "uppity" to some all that up.
Still tossing out the race card, eh? I guess you didn't get the memo. It's used up. Tapped out.
"Uppity" is a tool of Democratic identity politics. It is a word used to put a black person "in his or her place" because of the color of his or her skin.
That isn't what I said at all. I said that Barack Obama is a poor president because of the content of his character.
But I always appreciate the insights into the operation of the race-obsessed liberal mind.
"Obama trusted Reid and Pelosi "
Pelosi was forced to pass the Senate version.
Reid was forced to pass the Baucus version.
The Health Care reform isn't bad law, as far as it goes.
Maximum 10.2% insurance costs for households making under $90,000 with subsidies.
80-85% MLRs for insurance companies.
It's a compromise I'd settle for as a first cut.
As for your childish namecalling jms, blow it out your ass. You add no value to the comment section here, just empty taunting and noise.
Hmm ... let me check ...
Your type used to use the word "uppity" to some all that up.
Nope. It was Troy who started it. I know that some liberals think that conservatives should just shut up and take it when liberals falsely smear them as racists, but I'm not playing that game.
jms blithered, I know that some liberals think that conservatives should just shut up and take it when liberals falsely smear them as racists...
Individual conservatives may or may not be racists, but the conservative movement certainly is.
If you keep repeating it enough times, you can continue to convince yourself that it is true.