Skip to main content

...at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.
 
I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. One: middle class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Perfect framing.

President Obama knocked it out of the ballpark this morning in his first weekly address after a discouraging election for Democrats, advocating tax cuts for the middle class and pointing out that we'd have to borrow to extend the same tax cuts to the rich.

Bravo.

The entire address is short, sweet and to the point: He heard the message of frustration with inaction from voters, he intends to heed it, and the burden for holding up the process will clearly be passed to Republicans who will be pushing for more borrowing to reward their rich friends. It doesn't get any better than this.

His closing is a perfect grace note, acknowledging the election's results while warning that there are the same old problems awaiting solution:

There are new public servants in Washington, but we still face the same challenges. And you made it clear that it’s time for results. This a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.

Ball's in your court, Republicans. Do you cooperate and start problem solving? Or do you hold the country's problems hostage to serving millionaires and billionaires?

The full transcript can be found at the White House website and beneath the fold.

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address
The White House
November 6, 2010

This week, Americans across the country cast their votes and made their voices heard. And your message was clear.

You’re rightly frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery. So am I.

You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results. I do too.

So I congratulate all of this week’s winners – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But now, the campaign season is over. And it’s time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and deliver those results: speeding up our economic recovery, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class so that the American Dream feels like it’s back within reach.

That’s why I’ve asked to sit down soon with leaders of both parties so that we can have an extended discussion about what we can do together to move this country forward.

And over the next few weeks, we’re going to have a chance to work together in the brief upcoming session of Congress.

Here’s why this lame duck session is so important. Early in the last decade, President Bush and Congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year.

What that means is, if Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day.

But the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families. For the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet.  They are the ones who need relief right now.

So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.

Let’s start where we agree. All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans. None of us want them to wake up on January 1st with a higher tax bill. That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s 98 percent of the American people.

We also agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down our deficit. That’s going to require everyone to make some tough choices. In fact, if Congress were to implement my proposal to freeze non-security discretionary spending for three years, it would bring this spending down to its lowest level as share of the economy in 50 years.

But at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.

I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. One: middle class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

There are new public servants in Washington, but we still face the same challenges. And you made it clear that it’s time for results. This a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.

Thanks.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:30 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So... (16+ / 0-)

    ...we borrow from future middle class taxpayers to support current middle class taxpayers? Is that still the plan?

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:32:27 AM PDT

    •  yep. (19+ / 0-)

      I believe the theory is that the middle class will put that money right back into the economy because the middle class is barely getting by. Whereas the wealthy will just save it - so not enough benefit to warrant the borrowing.

      Lisa

      All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

      by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:42:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boston to Salem, Lothar2009

        When the money is paid back, does that not take money back out of the economy to the precise degree (plus interest) that it was injected when it was borrowed?

        /I mean, the fact that we are going to pay it back is laughable, it's almost certain that we are going to default on the debt

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

          The theory is that when the economy is more robust and going strongly, we will be able to afford paying it back.

          I'm not saying this is an awesome theory - I'm just saying I believe that is the theory behind why it's OK to borrow for the middle class but not for the wealthy.

          Lisa

          All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

          by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:46:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hmi

            The theory is that when the economy is more robust and going strongly, we will be able to afford paying it back.

            Consumptive activities don't help this process. If our unemployment rate goes down because we all have retail jobs or government jobs, you can't use that to pay off debt; the debt just continues to mount. In order to take this theory at its word, I would need to see evidence that there is some process by which significant amounts of exportable economic growth occur because of the borrowing.

            I'm not saying this is an awesome theory - I'm just saying I believe that is the theory behind why it's OK to borrow for the middle class but not for the wealthy.

            So, doesn't this then strike you as a little... self-serving, trying to come up with an economic theory that supports what people politically want to do anyway?

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:50:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  possibly, yes. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, Dustee, CS in AZ

              This is not my theory, I am not advocating this theory. I am simply reporting what I have read/heard re: why it is "ok" to borrow for the middle class but not for the upper class, since you seemed to be asking a question about it.

              Lisa

              All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

              by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:07:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are political realities though (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snackdoodle

              Only something like 30% of people say end all the tax cuts.  I'm with you on this - I think all the tax cuts should be ended, but I don't think it is politically possible to end them right now.  However, tax cuts for the lowest income levels, say under $40K, probably would stimulate the economy.

              "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

              by ivorybill on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:09:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How much will our taxes go up, if the cuts expire (0+ / 0-)

                on December 31st?

                President Obama says if congress doesn't act to extend them, our taxes go up January 1. How much are we talking about? Does our paycheck withholding rate change immediately, as in people will be receiving a smaller paycheck on their first payday in January? If that happens and it's a noticeable amount, it will be disastrous ... both politically for the White House and Congress, and financially for a lot of us who are barely hanging on as it is. My husband just asked me "how much will our checks be reduced" and I don't know the answer... guess I need to do some research on this because counting on congress to act to prevent it seems like a long shot. Damn.

                •  It's a panoply of changes, actually (0+ / 0-)
                  Payroll withholding is, of course, tied into the prevailing tax rates, so the amount of your withholding would change accordingly:

                  Some taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket would go to the 15 percent bracket;
                  The 25 percent bracket would go to 28 percent;
                  The 28 percent bracket would become 31 percent;
                  The 33 percent bracket would go to 36 percent; People in the highest bracket -- 35 percent -- would see their rate go up to 39.6 percent

                  The AMT would once again apply to families making $45,000 or more and individuals making at least $33,750.

                  The child tax credit would be halved; the estate tax would return to 55 percent with a $1 million exemption; the marriage penalty inequities would return; and capital gains rates will return to 20 percent, while the tax on dividends will go back to marginal rates.

                  See here

                  What you believe determines what you can observe. Einstein

                  by dharmafarmer on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:19:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Isn't a definition of courage (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                magnetics

                to do what is right, even when it's hard?

                With redistricting, the Dems are screwed anyway, this will be the last opportunity for a very long time to stop the madness.

            •  Well, today is the (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ferg, ravenwind, Dustee, SteelerGrrl

              very first time the world has ever experienced someone: trying to come up with an economic theory that supports what people politically want to do anyway.

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:40:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How about increased tax revenue (0+ / 0-)

              When there is higher employment?  How about bringing BACK those jobs which were outsourced?  As fuel prices rise, it will make less sense to send jets over to China to be serviced, or to ship to the U.S. all of the crap that is made over there.  I'd rather pay a little more for items made here in the U.S.  How about increased values of American investments so that capital comes back here?  How about getting our technology and education base going so that we're not importing clean energy technology from abroad?  If we don't have the middle-class earning and spending more, then there will be no market even for the crap we're importing or for the services we're outsourcing.    

              •  Actually, all you need is for the taxes (0+ / 0-)

                to reflect accurately the value of what's being produced.

                Right now, the middle class pays what--28 to 35% of income tax. The super-wealthy, who don't make income for the bulk of their wealth pay 15% on the money they inherited that just sits there and does nothing but make more money through interest. The money not tied to working and producing should be taxed at a higher rate.  

                I 'ship Obama/America. OTP

                by athenap on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:52:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Consumptive activities do help (0+ / 0-)

              it's a trickle-up. It means having a little extra in the grocery bill to afford more items, or a bigger variance of items. It means the difference between duct-taping your washer together with unicorn farts and pie pans to catch the leaks, versus getting a new one.

              Money in your pocket means you can meet more of your needs, and maybe even some of your wants. Creating demand that fuels supply that creates more jobs and so on. More people moving into the middle class makes a bigger pool to spread the responsibility. A lower tax rate with more people in that tax bracket will generate more income to pay for the common needs we all benefit from.

              I 'ship Obama/America. OTP

              by athenap on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:42:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's ok because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            athenap

            it's the middle class who has powered the economy since the Great D. Now, like then, the big problem is that everyone is broke. Except the fortunate few of course, but Ford figured out long ago that the way to get truly rich was marketing to the masses.... so he raised the pay of his workers a lot.

            The consumer will not come back until they have some bucks to spend.

        •  Careful, your theories are starting (0+ / 0-)

          to conflict. Giving the middle class a tax cut means they'll be putting it right back into the economy and spending it the way they want to, not the way the gubmint wants to. Isn't that letting people "keep more of what they earn?"

          PS-Props for your sig line. :)

          I 'ship Obama/America. OTP

          by athenap on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:33:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It will be offshore (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        magnetics

        The wealthy will park  it in foreign investments (for a better return - like, China), or they will spend it abroad - luxury goods, islands in the Caribbean and so forth.  I mean really - there is no "Billionaire Day" at Disney World or Branson, is there?

    •  If we get the economy going, and some middle (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sherri in TX, Dustee, isabelle hayes

      class jobs, we can pull the deficit down.
      duh

      •  What jobs? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crazy like a fox, drmah, hmi

        More people working at Taco Bell or for the government don't help reduce the deficit.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:56:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, they don't work for the government anymore (0+ / 0-)

          they work for private corporate contractors who collect taxpayer money so they can pay themselves big bonuses and dividends to the wealthy.

          -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

          by MarciaJ720 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:19:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  people collecting a pay check (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PLS, wlfpack81, Dustee

          spend money, whether it's a gov't or private paycheck

          •  Spending money doesn't pay down deficits (0+ / 0-)

            It just exacerbates them.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:12:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tax cuts to the rich don't either (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              magnetics

              they inflate it, especially when they use the extra cash to open up factories in places like Mexico and East Asia, further increasing our trade deficits.

            •  not true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              missississy

              Confused by your comment. Are you saying that an improving economy will have no impact on deficits ?

              This is why you want an expanding economy. For it to be successful, government spending has to stay the same or decrease.

              The problem that occurred in 2008-2010 (now almost 2011), that in order to dampen the effects of the recession, the federal government spent unprecedented amounts to keep people working (and covered those not working with unemployment assistance), while only receiving a portion of that income back in federal taxes-- which of course, worsens the deficit (gap between revenue and expenses ) and overall debt. That was the lose-lose choice the Democrats had to make--either attempt to assist,  or worsen the economy by not assisting, and thus allowing more people to be laid off as the entire economy collapsed. (The latter was the policy of the Hoover administration in 1928 that believed in a laissez faire policy--that the economy could take care of itself.) Finally, it was a lose-lose-lose proposition--lose the entire Congress if the economy got worse.

              Interestingly, monetary policy, whereby the Fed controls a recession via the money supply (lowering interest rates, lowering the reserve requirements of banks so that they can loan more, and/or buying up US Treasury bonds (securities) has had virtually no effect on the recession. We are at record lows in interest rates and nothing has happened with corporations to expand to create jobs.

              There is no quick fix, no campaign slogan, no magic wand to create an expanding economy at this point.  There needs to be a point where corporations decide that they can no longer sit on their hands and not expand (which they will) in order to be providing the profits desired by shareholders.

              It's like a teeter totter--really. Just keeping a balance.

              •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                Are you saying that an improving economy will have no impact on deficits ?

                Depends what you mean by "improving economy". An economy dependent on government spending will look "good" but will only rely on massive deficits to survive and will evaporate when they go away.

                If the government creates a WPA for example, sure that will make a "better economy", which depends on increasing debt. When the debt has to paid back the economy will suck more than the original benefit was.

                So you have to be very careful when you talk about what a "good economy" is.

                There is no quick fix, no campaign slogan, no magic wand to create an expanding economy at this point.  There needs to be a point where corporations decide that they can no longer sit on their hands and not expand (which they will) in order to be providing the profits desired by shareholders.

                I believe it is somewhat likely that we never will have anything construed as a robustly expanding domestic American economy ever again, at least in the working lifetime of those reading this.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:00:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Spending money on the interstate highway system (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snackdoodle, missississy

              Created a radical new America and drove economic growth for decades.
              Now we have worn out the infrastructure that we built to get out of the Great Depression and to put people to work after WWII.
              We need more rail, more bus lines more broadband internet, much more electrical grid to connect to the wind farms, etc.
              We are about to start a revolution in architecture and city planning around energy efficiency and conservation.
              Even without hydro-fracking we will continue to rely on natural gas which is much cleaner and has a much smaller "carbon footprint" per btu than oil or coal and of which we have large domestic reserves.
              Most of this will require minimal "gov. spending", mostly it needs a level playing field to compete with oil/coal.
              This is where all the jobs are, middle class/working class/non-exportable/private sector jobs.
              This last election was a massive effort by big oil/big coal to turn back the clock and resist the inevitable. Most of the issues that got debated in this election were not even pimples on big oil's butt.

              •  Great ideas! (0+ / 0-)

                And not everything has to be nationwide in scale.  I've been hearing that a lot of green jobs can be created by people retrofitting existing houses, buildings, and infrastructure.  Nothing would require a huge outlay in itself.  We do need, however, to OWN the skills and technology needed to make this happen.

              •  Infrastructure projects are a long term (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                magnetics, NoGW

                investment in the economy, which can and HAS been shown to stimulate and grow the economy, which can also reduce deficit if done correctly. Unfortunately far too many people don't look that far ahead. Many don't look past yesterday.

                •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

                  For saying "Investment" instead of "Spending". Investments, whether government or private, should be designed to be smart - improving the capacity and the efficiency of the economy, thereby repaying more than they cost. What sorts of investments qualify?

                  Good education - needed for a competitive workforce.

                  Good healthcare - ditto

                  More efficient transportation and buildings - to reduce costly energy usage, pollution and supply line protection (think global military requirements).

                  Feel free to add your own examples...

                  Corporations exist to benefit shareholders. Governments should exist to benefit citizens.

                  by NoGW on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:46:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  One idea is to improve export jobs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          magnetics

          hence the trip to Asia.

          "Take the victory and keep on marching"

          by SeattleProgressive on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:16:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. Right after he's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            magnetics

            signs the trade agreement with South Korea that will suck even more jobs out of this country.

            Wake up.

            •  More info on trade agreement? (0+ / 0-)

              I am a little behind on this one. Is there a trade agreement drafted or proposed? And does it contain provisions that would tend to be detrimental to U.S. workers?

              "Take the victory and keep on marching"

              by SeattleProgressive on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:26:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, boned up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Crazy like a fox

                What I'm seeing is that the auto industry and the beef industry in the United States are concerned that the KORUS doesn't do enough to open up Korean markets. It seems that the Obama administration is working to find a solution to solve those problems.

                There seem to be some positives: South Korea is a leading consumer, and the European Union is poised to compete heavily there. If the problems with the auto and beef markets can be sorted out, it seems prudent to strengthen trade relations in order to stimulate exports.

                Obama was critical of the version of the agreement put forward during in 2007, and said he would not support it unless it was amended to balance trade away from overly favoring Korean automakers.

                But all throughout his campaign, Obama was strongly supportive of opening trade with the world, so long as environmental, labor and quality controls were in place.

                "Take the victory and keep on marching"

                by SeattleProgressive on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:45:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Repealing the Bush Tax Increases (15+ / 0-)

      Everyone refers to these as "the Bush Tax Cuts," which is frustratingly inaccurate.  Bush and the Republicans passed a bill that lowered taxes temporily;  the same bill INCREASED taxes on all Americans beginning in 2011.  No one but Bush and the Republicans are raising our taxes in 2011.  Therefore the issue before us is what to do about THE BUSH/REPUBLICAN TAX INCREASES!  Everyone from Obama to Kos refers to them as the Bush tax cuts, which is the misnomer that Rove loves to hear.  Why can't we call them what they are:  the Bush Tax Increases?    

      •  Like this a lot! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dustee

        Words matter.

        The President has the right message and words on this issue.

        The Fixit Party must produce JOBS....yesterday.

        by bewareofme on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:19:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good luck pushing that (0+ / 0-)

        And, BTW, they were tax cuts.  And the GOP can easily come back with "They would have be permanent but they had to have an expiration date to get Dem votes". Which, incidentally, is the truth.

        "Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."-William Jefferson Clinton

        by The High Command on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:41:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent point. Congress must act to prevent the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Viola Lee

        Bush/Republican tax increases, which they voted for 10 years ago.

        Instead, Obama is going to end up being blamed for raising everyone's taxes, and a tax increase on people living at the edge already is going to be a huge problem for the economy and any hope of a 'recovery' and will most likely start the overall economy sinking again. All so that the republicans can make sure millionaires and billionaires don't have to contribute more. Paying taxes is "punishment" and rich people paying slightly higher taxes is tyranny!, don't you know. And the republicans in congress are more than willing to hold us hostage, and to go ahead and pull the trigger, if they don't get their way.

        It's maddening that the republican party still somehow claims the mantel of being "fiscal conservatives" who care about government spending and deficits, while they continue to run up the credit card when they are in power, drive the country to the brink of collapse, and now they get away with blaming Democrats for the debt and the state of the economy. It's insane.

      •  Because the R's understand that PR is (0+ / 0-)

        everything, and the D's don't get it.

    •  lol.. how come less spending is never an option? (0+ / 0-)

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:26:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If we don' support current middle class taxpayers (0+ / 0-)

      there won't be any future middle class taxpayers.

      I 'ship Obama/America. OTP

      by athenap on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:30:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All you need to know about how this will play out (39+ / 0-)

    Is in this sentence:

    I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

    "Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."-William Jefferson Clinton

    by The High Command on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:33:59 AM PDT

  •  I think this is a pitch-perfect performance (21+ / 0-)

    for this particular moment.  Too bad the people who don't support him won't hear it.  My guess?  It won't be alluded to by the press, whose "he lost, he's up against the wall, he's on the defensive" narrative would be disturbed by the President's actual words.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:35:20 AM PDT

  •  All well and good but when the GOP spin machine (7+ / 0-)

    gets ahold of it, it'll be something else altogether.  If anyone wants my opinion, that is THE #1 reason we lost the election.  Older white Americans who watch Fox "news" got the bejeesus scared out of them.  They're scared.  Of the black man in the White House.  And change.  Talk them through it Mr. President.  Go around Fox and hate radio, hold their hand and explain it to them...slowly.

    Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

    by Fury on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:36:03 AM PDT

  •  Why won't he say "veto." (16+ / 0-)

    If he's not going to threaten to reject a bill that extends tax cuts for the rich, then what does any of this mean? I understand it sounds good and makes a logical, cohesive argument, but we're in a lame duck session! The Repubs are not going to bow down to points about the deficit, they are going to ram this through if the Dems don't fight back.

    Sorry, but I'm not buying any of this if he doesn't demand that tax cuts for the rich expire. Democrats lost because they didn't fight hard enough. If Obama didn't learn that Tuesday, he never will.

    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X

    by Shields on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:37:00 AM PDT

  •  Dear Mitch McConnell and John Boner (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missliberties, xanthippe2, sherlyle, drmah

    It is the economy stupid.

    Sincerely yours,
    Bill Clinton.

    Let Obama be Obama.

    by Yoshimi on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:37:57 AM PDT

  •  Woohoo! (10+ / 0-)

    Impermanent tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.  Sure am glad we're so progressive.

  •  Why won't he say that the tax cuts for (17+ / 0-)

    families making less than $250,000 a year also apply to the wealthiest Americans?  It's still a tax cut for everybody - we're just not going to apply the cuts to the amounts anyone earns over $250,000.

    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. -Greek proverb

    by marleycat on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:39:23 AM PDT

    •  I see your point, but it's a bit nuanced (4+ / 0-)

      Not even our side is trying to make that distinction.

      "Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."-William Jefferson Clinton

      by The High Command on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same difference as Social Security caps (0+ / 0-)

        If you buy a sweater for $250, and the cap is $50, then NO one pays taxes on the first $50 dollars. So if you buy a sweater for 75 you get 'more' of a tax break.

        ~a little change goes a long way~

        by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:49:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes of course (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties, isabelle hayes

          I get it.

          It's just not an argument either party is making, or want to make.

          Repubs don't want the distinction, so they can say "There should be tax cuts for everybody!"

          Dems don't want the distinction because they want to be able to say "Republicans want to give a tax break to the rich".

          The (logical) argument that the rich get a tax break even if it's just for income under 250,000 is correct, but not one easily reduced to a sound byte.  

          "Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."-William Jefferson Clinton

          by The High Command on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:54:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We have to make sure that everyone (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xanthippe2, bushondrugs, marleycat

            else gets it.

            The huge missing piece in the democrats campaign has been the narrative. The message that connects. We know we are on the right side of justice, so we have to craft our message to convey that.

            This has been my total pet peeve forever. We are essentially at war with Republican talking points, which does not equal reality.

            ~a little change goes a long way~

            by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:59:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why wouldn't you do the exact opposite (0+ / 0-)

          When everybody gets taxed on their first 250k, most people will be taxed on all their income. It's the ones with money sitting there, doing nothing but making more of itself (and not making any jobs or any goods or any services) that should be taxed at 35% and not 15%. The money that's socked away and not flowing through the economy needs "encouragement" to get out there and work for it.

          I 'ship Obama/America. OTP

          by athenap on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 05:36:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  waaaaaaay too complicated... (7+ / 0-)

      for Joe and Jane Sixpack. Understanding that would require an attention span and a decent math education.

      Lisa

      All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

      by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Help us help them understand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marleycat

        ~a little change goes a long way~

        by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:50:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes

          It all goes back to education.  Surprisingly, I don't ever remember being taught in school much about taxes, perhaps because it is too "emotional" an issue for people? Nonetheless, taxes are a fact of or lives, and taxes are what keeps government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" running. We need to start teaching everyone exactly how a progressive tax system works.  By doing so, I think more people would understand just why it makes sense for those with an excess of what is considered "enough" should pitch in a little more.

          A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. -Greek proverb

          by marleycat on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:01:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well we never had to worry about it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marleycat, isabelle hayes

            It was just taken as a part of the fabric of our society.

            Until the free market radicals to the surface.

            The dirty little secret is that the free marketeers, married themselves to religion. The divisions in the tea party movement show us that was a marriage that was doomed to fail.

            ~a little change goes a long way~

            by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:30:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm trying, believe me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties

          All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

          by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:08:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There can be no freedom agenda (0+ / 0-)

            if you don't have a job.

            Safety nets grease the skids of capitalism.

            Businesses don't need customers.

            Tax cuts for billionaires that ship jobs overseas will not give your children a job.

            ~a little change goes a long way~

            by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:28:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  For Joe and Jane Sixpack, and everyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marleycat

        else, I wish the president would have said something like, "If tax cuts for the wealthy were the answer, we wouldn't have gotten into a near depression at the end of President Bush's second term. And I won't let that happen again."

        Also, "Look at every millionaire, multi-millionaire, or newly made millionaire who decries that their grandchildren will be paying for this deficit. But yet they want more tax cuts.  Let's all hope they realize that giving themselves new tax cuts now would actually hurt their grandchildren later because of their choices now."

        Enough already. Stand up and fight. If you lose, you lose, but at least you tried. That's all I ask.

        by gooderservice on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:17:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. This is more complicated. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        athenap, marleycat, Willa Rogers

        It is very simple.

        "On Jan 1, I propose giving a tax cut to all Americans on their first 250k of income.  "

        How hard is that?  Keep it simple.  Done.

        "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

        by justmy2 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:21:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree it needs to be framed as a cut (5+ / 0-)

      on incomes up to $250k instead of a cut for families making up to $250k.  The latter implies that, if you make more than $250, you don't get the cut.  I think talking about incomes instead of people is a pretty simple way to characterize it and something everyone would understand.  The problem is now it's probably to late to change the perception.  Another messaging failure.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:50:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush Billionaire Bonus has a nicer ring (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        accumbens, marleycat

        to it than tax cut.  

        As in -- We cannot afford another round of Bush Billionaire Bonuses.

        Or --- The Bush Billionaire Bonus borrowing decade dug this hole.  It did not "create jobs". The theory was proved wrong. Instead, it gave us an avalanche of job shedding.

        And --- WE have created more PRIVATE SECTOR jobs since I took office than Bush created in his 8 years.  Results matter more than failed theories.  

        The fact I bolded should be repeated by every Dem in every discussion about anything until it wipes out the proven wrong trickle down lie.

        De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

        by Neon Mama on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:17:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually he does say that even if he didn't here (0+ / 0-)

      He has said it about every time he talked about it during campaign.

  •  Yeah! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sherri in TX, RevJoe, sherlyle, drmah, Otherday

    Draw a line in the sand and stick with it.

    These words will help turn red to blue.

    ~a little change goes a long way~

    by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:41:04 AM PDT

  •  I only hope it's enough. (6+ / 0-)

    I am just so discouraged by the election results - actually more so by the MSM's analysis and responses to the election results.

    The corporations and wealthy have a deathgrip on the rest of us. How the fuck are we going to turn things around? I have a 4 yr old and I am so pessimistic about the kind of country she will be living in.

    Lisa :(

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:41:08 AM PDT

    •  Because their 'plan' wont work (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, Annalize5, xanthippe2, keetz4

      If they think relitigating health care will get rural residents in America jobs, they are insane.

      The good news is that the R's now bear some responsibility for creating jobs.

      We absolutely must make sure that they don't blame Obama for their policies that stifle job creation.

      ~a little change goes a long way~

      by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:52:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "Obama Doesn't Get It" meme (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joynow

      which Jon Stewart talked about this week, is driving me nuts.

      I know a mid-term is sort of a referendum on the President, but it's not direct, and it's certainly not simple.

      One talking head after another asks if Obama gets "the message" voters are sending.  They don't even bother to try to enunciate that message.  Because there isn't one!  There were multiple messages sent by those who voted and didn't vote.

      To say that "the message" is Obama went "too far" with his programs is simply not true.

      •  That is the Republican Meme (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AustinSF

        Congratulations, 'Obama went too far' is what the Republicans want you to think.  You're following their lead perfectly.  

        I However, believe that the message of the voters is 'Obama was too timid and compromised the Democrats out of Power'.

        But I don't own TeeVee networks like Rupert the Australian to get my opinion out.  

        ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

        by NevDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:43:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stop (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AustinSF, missississy

      buying their shit!

      Take your money out of their banks!

      Take your money out of their stock market!

      Turn off your god damned TV!

      Starve the beast!

  •  The Filibuster Must Die! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Major Tom, sherlyle

    Unless that happens, none of what Obama says matters.

    He also becomes the Republican's wet dream: the one term President.

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:42:36 AM PDT

    •  I'm afraid if we don't find a way (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joynow, Major Tom, drmah, abraxas, Otherday

      to neuter Fox News we're in a losing war.  I'm not saying they have to shut up permanently, just saying our side should get equal airing.  

      •  But we are right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5, sherlyle

        We have right on our side. Why is countering lies so hard. It shouldn't be if we all stand together.

        Instead of nitpicking each other to death and all this infighting we need to stand together and support our democrats, with one strong consistent message.

        Free markets are not the arbitor of social justice and the moral high ground ever.

        Whoever has the most money and tells the most lies does not represent exceptionalism in AMerica.

        ~a little change goes a long way~

        by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:57:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not to sure that Keith's little glitch with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sherlyle, epigone66

        Rachel's response, especially re: Fox, might not have been a ploy to address this situation.

        •  Olberman (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drmah

          I agree it is a ploy to expose fox's lack of a proper journalistic standards, and their blatant donations to GOP. Their primary talking point is trying to differentiate between news and opinion. It gets muddy from there... That is why I am surprised everyone thinks this is about olberman. It is about a news corporation acting out as a political machine. This stunt will get the dialogue going, which was missed in the election coverage. Or ignored.

        •  Might take more than this little glitch (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle, drmah

          to get others besides Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart to speak honestly about Fox.

          Brian Williams gave the KO suspension about seven words.

    •  The rule won't be changed in lame duck. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, xanthippe2, bushondrugs

      It's here to stay, for at least two more years.

      Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. - FDR

      by SpamNunn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

        Perhaps not in the lame duck session (but it is possible by skillful use of Senate Rule #20).

        The first order of business in the new session that begins in January is an 'organizing resolution'  It passes with a simple majority, no filibustering allowed.  It contains the rules of the Senate, including the Filibuster.  It is here that the Filibuster may be revoked or changed to allow a final resolution of any motion with a simple majority, and a finite end to debate.  

        Filibuster in its current form is a tool of obstruction.  The Filibuster must be a painful procedure that is used as a final resort to delay truly odious legislation.  

        As it is now, Filibuster is painless (pun intended), a Senator signals that they intend to filibuster and this stops the motion.  If the Senate wants to retain the filibuster they need to return to the days of having to wear a diaper to speak at that length.  It. Must. Be. A. Painful. Process.

        The Filibuster needs to be returned to the days of Pain or it must Die.  

        ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

        by NevDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:04:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The organizing resolution is not first. (0+ / 0-)

          The organizing resolutions make committee assignments, and although they're typically passed early in the session, they don't contain the rules. The House adopts its rules package as one of the first orders of business, but the Senate doesn't work that way.

          There is, however, a procedure under which the Senate can opt to reconsider or change its rules and end filibusters of any proposed changes with a simple majority vote, but the organizing resolutions have nothing to do with this.

          Additionally, the organizing resolutions enjoy no special protection from the filibuster. The Republicans briefly threatened to filibuster them in January 2009, in fact, but quickly found out that that actually put them at a distinct disadvantage, and folded instead.

    •  I believe Michael Bennet (5+ / 0-)

      my new Senator from Colorado, has plans on introducing a bill that will tweek the filibuster.

      I would like to see the stupidity obliterated where ONE lousy Senator can hold up a bill with a secret hold.

      ~a little change goes a long way~

      by missliberties on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:54:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the secret hold seems worse to me (0+ / 0-)

        We focus on the filibuster, and while it's true that just the possibility of a filibuster is a powerful force against legislating, at least there's the option of making the filibuster happen, out in the open.

        •  Secret Holds (0+ / 0-)

          are at the discretion of the Senate Leader, I think.  As such, he may ignore or set aside as he sees fit.  I think he should see fit much more often.

          ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

          by NevDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:37:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, that just kills me. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Don't let it kill you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              missississy

              Secret holds are not discretionary, except in the sense that it's discretionary as to whether or not to challenge them.

              The dirty little secret here is that the hold is a creation of the filibuster. It is a proxy for the intention to filibuster the motion to proceed, which is used to bring a bill to the floor when unanimous consent fails. So if you're for ending holds, you're for filibuster reform. There's no other way to get rid of them.

              When you want to bring a bill to the floor, the first way to get it there is to ask unanimous consent to bring it up. If someone objects, you can make a motion to proceed to its consideration instead. But that motion is debatable, which means it's subject to a filibuster.

              A hold is nothing but a request to your party's floor representative that he or she object on your behalf if anyone asks unanimous consent to bring the bill you don't like to the floor, an a warning of your intention to filibuster the motion to proceed if someone tries to use that.

              The "discretion" that the Majority Leader has is the discretion to decide whether or not to try make a motion to proceed, knowing that it will be filibustered, and that it will take nearly a week to defeat that filibuster even if virtually no one votes against cloture, and that the bill itself can still be filibustered even after you spend that week getting cloture on the motion to proceed.

              It's the threat of being able to waste two weeks or more of precious Senate floor time with the filibuster that gives the hold its power. And the way to kill the hold is to make the motion to proceed non-debatable.

              •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                Very illuminating.

                I'm amazed anything ever makes it to a vote.

                •  You're welcome (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  missississy

                  It is pretty amazing. Filibustering a motion to proceed used to be pretty rare, but it's become routine with this Republican minority. That's why one of the most popular small bore reforms being proposed is to make the motion to proceed non-debatable (though it may be that they choose to make it non-debatable only when it's made by the Majority Leader).

                  That would significantly disarm the hold, since beyond objecting to unanimous consent, it would have no real power to delay things. A motion to proceed would come to an immediate vote, and a majority would carry it, and the hold would be over.

    •  They said that about Clinton in 94 also (0+ / 0-)
  •  Obama ready to compromise himself out of office (11+ / 0-)

    So here comes Barack the compromiser caving in once again to the Republicans.  What doesn't he understand about this band of thugs?  You should not reward bad behavior and really who runs this country?  By letting the rich get off once again by not paying their fair share of taxes it is still allowing the deficit to creep even larger than it is.

    The Republicans just despise Obama and his continual weakness and caving into their constant demands is not serving him well.

    With the U.S. in three expensive wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Marijuana) when are we going to get out of this morass we're currently mired in?

    Stand up and deliver Mr. President, that's why you were elected.  Being bullied is not pretty, so stand up and deliver a punch back or the Repubicans will continue to use you as a doormat.

    Mr. Obama you have the bully pulpit, the veto pen and the powers of Executive Orders, use them wisely and use them often... kay?

    •  Obama will never (5+ / 0-)

      make you happy.

      •  Say again? (5+ / 0-)

        I didn't realize my personal happiness at Obama is tied into his performance as president.  I voted for the guy, bought campaign swag, personally talked three people into voting for him in 2006 and now that he's MY President I want him to succeed and do what's right for the country.

        So if he continues on his namby pamby path of constantly letting the Republicans outwit, outlast and out maneuver him at every corner he is going to be voted off the island come 2012.  I will support him against a Republican candidate but I might keep an open eye on any other possible Democratic challenger if this keeps up.

        •  Witch is it? ... I am so confused (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Annalize5

          Obama ready to compromise himself out of office

          I will support him against a Republican candidate

        •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missississy

          ...when does he stop being mediator-in-chief and start aadvocating for taking this country in a new direction by attacking the conservative ideology instead of republicans?  We could deal and compromise with liberal republicans if they existed- but they don't because our society for the last 30 years has viewed liberalism as unamerican.  We need a leader who will help change that situation.

          A mediator will never get us there.

          We need more politicians that reject the "conservative conventional wisdom" that has dominated our politics for the last 30 years.  So many solutions that we need to use are considered off the table- that unless we attack the mindset that we can't challenge the WTO, that we can't use tariffs, that we can't protect domestic manufacturers, that we can't etc, etc,- the list goes on and on.

          •  My hope is that he's paying lip service (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MB32

            to compromise in this case.

            Whether or not he actually has to compromise might be determined by public opinion + legislative maneuvering.  This statement is meant to sway public opinion.  It's not the actual negotiation.

            But I agree with you that I would like to hear him use the bully pulpit to tear down the pieces of conservative ideology that are increasingly being accepted as mainstream.

            •  I hope its lip service too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              missississy

              If remember correctly the polls are on our side on this. People do not want to see tax cuts extended for top 2 percent, so it shouldn't take much to sway the public's opinion. Just like he mentioned the public's opinion about DADT in the press conference he needs to keep hammering away with that and the public's opinion about the tax cuts as well. It's funny that Cable news anchors, who love too talk about polls, don't talk about those polls. Probably because most of them are in the top 2 percent...

              Obama to his opponents: If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize - Muhammad Ali

              by MB32 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:43:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  the big problem has been... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              missississy

              ...that conservative ideology has been the mainstream ideaology since 1980- we really aren't drifting there- we really never left.  If we can change that, we can set the stage for the future.

              For example, if we weren't stuck with conservative idealogy as the conventional wisdom, we could have easily expanded medicare to cover everyone instead of cobbling together a complicated plan based on free market ideology.

      •  Super Responce. It's time KOS moves past the (0+ / 0-)

        nay-sayers and moves toward real solutions to problems.

  •  Not bad (3+ / 0-)

    Now get the message out beyond what is ultimately just a youtube clip. Nobody but democrats watch these things.

    It's a simple idea and easy enough to explain, but will he buckle with the spine of an eel like he did on everything they accomplished and let the republicans control what people perceive? Don't give permanent tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires that would require us to borrow billions -- great and easy to understand, makes sense. Sure, right on. Now repeat it over and over until you're blue in the face. Perception is reality, like it or lump it, and the tea party and republicans had their way with perception for the first two years of his presidency.

    •  if he'd talked about it in this week's press conf (0+ / 0-)

      It might have taken some of the focus off of this "Obama doesn't get it" bullshit and put it on the fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

      The statements the R's are making right now in their victory speeches about the deficit and "working for the people" would contrast nicely with Obama's statement.

  •  Almost perfect (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, OLinda, mollyd, sherlyle, bushondrugs

    Could have done without the "tax relief" bit. Time to stop framing taxes as some sort of punishment we need to be saved from....

  •  At first, Obama was for the Public Option (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2, RainyDay, accumbens

    Wasn't he? Then he sold us out. So get ready for another sell out. We'll be told that extending the tax cuts for billionaires for a few years won't be permanent.

    Social Security, despite it being solvent until 2036, has been completely siphoned off to pay for the massive tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires over the last ten years - and at a time when we have unnecessarily been fighting two over-extended and enormously expensive wars for which the wealthy have not contributed a single penny. Yet expect the Social Security retirement age to be increased under Obama via the "cat food commission."

    When it comes to the Obama sellouts, "you ain't seen nothing yet."

    Stupid is as stupid does. I just wish Obama would go away quietly.

    •  Can I have a wish to? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Tom
    •  so we can have president palin for 8 years? (0+ / 0-)

      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

      by bluefaction on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:44:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you point out the whole problem.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Tom, missississy

      ...to Obama's governing approach.

      He gets so stuck in the details- and ends up looking like all he does is negotiate away what he originally said was so important.

      And this will continue until he stops trying to be a mediator and compromiser.  Until he becomes a fierce advocate to the american people for changing the way our government works, he will not get us where we need to go- and he will continually disappoint us.

      It won't even matter if we approve of his policies- we simply will not feel good about where we are headed if he can't communicate what our collective vision of the nation's future looks like.

      Why in the world did he have such a hard time wrapping the health care bill in the flag and our moral character as a nation?  It leads many to think he doesn't really care one way or the other.

      •  Social Security too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom

        Why do I have to come to DKos to find out that tax cuts for millionaires & a made up war are going to be paid for by borrowing from Social Security, and that the big pile of IOUs is causing problems for politicians, and therefore we have to mess up Social Security?

        Why am I not instead hearing from my president that he is going to defend Social Security from the millionaires and the warmongers?

  •  That's pretty good framing (6+ / 0-)

    But I sure wish Obama wouldn't use that ultimate Republican term "tax relief."

    These colours don't run from cold bloody war!

    by Lost Left Coaster on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:45:12 AM PDT

    •  Yes. I do need relief, (0+ / 0-)

      but it's not from taxes.

    •  Also a problem with the $250,000 figure (0+ / 0-)

      The President said "That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s 98 percent of the American people."  But that's not really his position.  He would permanently extend tax cuts for all families, regardless of income -- even families over $250,000 would be better off than current law.  The only place he's saying he would not permanently extend tax cuts are for cuts that apply only to incomes in excess of $250,000.  

      It's important to understand that we're not talking about denying equal treatment to the rich -- indeed, those at $250,000 or above will likely get the maximum benefit of most of these tax cuts.  But rather than permanently giving these high income families a tax cut that would actually exceed the total annual income of many middle class households, they'd just get as much as the people whose income is a mere $249,999.99.  

  •  Does anybody watch these addresses? (7+ / 0-)

    I mean that as an honest question.  Do they get play in the media, or do only Obama supporters see them?

    •  Should be on a day other than Saturday (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, sherlyle, Otherday

      The media is off today. If he did them on a Monday, it would frame the White House message for the week, since "covering" it would be easy for the press.

      Forget about the pursuit of happiness; that way lies grief. Concentrate on the happiness of pursuit.

      by kimtcga on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:59:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Better do it at a press conference, with their (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, Otherday, missississy

        butts in chairs directly in front of him or at least in front of spokesman, and better be ready to make them behave, too.
        Saw a lot of criticism of Obama for his news conference following election (and justified criticism it was for the most part) but didn't see much comment on the conduct of the press.
        Wow.  What disrespect!  What kind of question is "So who's in charge now, Mr. President, you or John Boehner"?  Or "Yeah, you SAY you got the message, but aren't you still just not getting it"?
        If anyone had spoken to The Decider like that, they'd have been disappeared.  

        •  Also, what is "the message"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle

          This idea that the midterms are somehow a coherent referendum on Obama's agenda just kills me.  Multiple "messages" were sent by those who voted (and those who didn't).

          I think that press conference would've been a great time to bring up these tax cuts for millionaires.  Make it about real issues instead of all this meta horse race garbage.

    •  Newspaper (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kindofblue

      Generally, there is a composite write-up of Obama's Saturday address in the Sunday Star Tribune which is distributed state-wide.  The write up is generally pretty accurate regarding the content and tone of his Saturday address.  While it may not be heard on the radio by most, at least the newspaper provides the summary.  

      Better than nothing.

  •  They will still allow the tax cuts to be extended (6+ / 0-)

    for the highest income earners for two more years.  Permanent is the word he used, and if you only extend them for two more years, it won't be permanent.  Yet.

    I hope I misread that.

    Sarah Palin 2012!!! Prove the Mayans right...

    by funluvn1 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:45:51 AM PDT

  •  Actually, we'd only have to borrow it if we (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AreDeutz

    intend to spend it.   A technicality, for sure, but more accurate.  

    Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. - FDR

    by SpamNunn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:46:08 AM PDT

  •  The Bush tax cuts failed for 8 years. (12+ / 0-)

    Tax cuts never should have made up 1/3 of the stimulus package. Even if the economy was strong the Rethugs never would have ended the Bush tax cuts. It is time to end this farce of trickle down economics once and for all.

  •  Note the qualifier "permanent". (7+ / 0-)

    Which means I think they will punt and allow the Bush tax cuts for the top %1 for a little longer. Sigh.

    A change in terminology would be good. The Bush Loans Underwritten By Out Children.

    •  My tax cut last year covered my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crankyinNYC, Willa Rogers

      healthcare premium increase from the year before.  That's no way to jumpstart or maintain an economy.  That's crazy.  I didn't take that small amount of extra money and put it back into the economy; I raised the profit level for one healthcare insurance company.

      Enough already. Stand up and fight. If you lose, you lose, but at least you tried. That's all I ask.

      by gooderservice on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:21:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  people that make over $250K a year (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, Boston to Salem, missississy

    are not necessarily "millionaires or billionaires."
    Just sayin'.

  •  when the repugs are sworn in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, isabelle hayes
    the time for all of their talk and bullshit will be over.  I assume that all americans know how laws are made, in the United States.  You can watch on c-span, what bills the repugs will present out of the house.  Lets see the bills, I think a lot of people that voted for the repugs, will be sorry they did.
    •  i wonder who tunes in (0+ / 0-)

      to the prez's weekly addresses; i suspect not very many, comparatively, and that's the end of it, because the msm doesn't carry them live, anywhere, as far as i know;

      and i doubt very many look at c-span; after all, it's got no excitement

      how did fdr get to have weekly radio talks? people tuned in for them like crazy; why can't president obama get the air time?

  •  Must be a pretty small ballpark (10+ / 0-)

    If telling the Republicans he's willing to cave in on the tax cut extension is hitting it out of the park, then it must be a little league park.

    Obama is certainly a bush league negotiator, again compromising before real negotiations start.  AND his compromising didn't begin with this address - he and his minions unambiguously signaled compromise on extending the cuts for the rich from the get-go back in September when he started to really push this.

    Now it's not a question of backing down, but how far he'll back down. It think marleycat above has it right: the Republicans are going to out-message this.  They've already started framing it as a tax increase.  Again, another golden opportunity to take a firm stand for huge political advantage and Obama throws it away.  Nothing much has changed yet, that's for sure.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:47:14 AM PDT

    •  Agreed. (9+ / 0-)

      Now it's not a question of backing down, but how far he'll back down.

      I am so completely frustrated. Why is the President once again compromising before negotiations begin? I just don't get it, and I am long past the 11-dimensional chess fantasy. Where is the line in the sand? And why on earth is he looking to put this right back up as a major issue for 2012?

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:00:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you know, it's called... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        accumbens

        INCREMENTALISM!!!!!

        So I guess we only lost this past election INCREMENTALLY.

        Friends, when is enough enough? And how long can the Democratic Party survive with 'Incremental Obama?'

      •  Pre-compromise. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        accumbens, orestes1963

        I agree.

        I don't need to be persuaded extending tax cuts for the rich is a bad idea.

        I do need to feel confident that President Obama will fight against any attempt to extend those tax cuts for the rich -- both "permanently" and "right now."

        His speech does not give me that confidence.

        I believed him when he said he'd fight for the public option; he was equally eloquent then.  I was one of the fools who honestly believed we would get the public option.  Then I found out it was all back door deals and no transparency and what the people wanted wasn't considered politically expedient.

        Fool me once.

        As much as I would like a tax cut myself (and I make 5 figures a year), I would gladly forego a tax cut in order to make sure those cuts for the rich expire -- now, not 2 years down the road with no guarantee that will even happen.

      •  I think we need to apply Occam's razor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willa Rogers

        if the Dems will not stand up for anything, the logical conclusion to draw is that they are not interested in doing so.  Getting frustrated at them for "not seeing it" only distracts from the fact that they are NOT doing it.  They (as a group) are either cowards or corrupt.  Take your pick.  But there really are no other options.  We the people need to take back control of the party.

    •  Exactly my thoughts, too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      accumbens, orestes1963

      Must be a pretty small ballpark

      as in a T ball park.

      Exactly, again.

      Obama is certainly a bush league negotiator, again compromising before real negotiations start.

      If Obama really is willing to temporarily willing to extend tax cuts for the wealthy, he's got to start high and go low, i.e., only voice approval for middle class tax cuts and THAT'S IT.  Oh, and add something else on, too, like everyone making under 250K gets a voucher for free ice cream the beginning of every summer.  Then negotiate down from there, if necessary, but better yet, veto tax cuts for people making over 250K -- and hire speech writers and/or snippet writers that can much, much better convey a spiffy message to the country.

      Enough already. Stand up and fight. If you lose, you lose, but at least you tried. That's all I ask.

      by gooderservice on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:27:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the only way to take a stand on this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missississy

      ...would be for Obama to say that he would veto any legislation to extend or continue any of the tax cuts.  To basically say that everyone is concerned about the deficit and everyone has to help for it.

      He would probably earn some respect from this action.

      They are now in the position where they probably have to take bold stands- and have a real argument to make for why they are doing it.

      •  If he did veto a bill that extended it for all (0+ / 0-)

        if that is what he got then taxes would go up for everyone in January,

        Is that preferable to you? I'm not criticizing that, just asking if that is what people think would be the better option.

        In the press conference where everyone said he agreed to compromise it wasn't a question about extending cut for the wealthy. The question was if he was at least willing to negotiate on other parts of it, like lifting the $250,000 to $500,000. He said he would be willing to negotiate.

        So... what is it people are saying is right and wrong to do?
        Can I wait to judge him and not be an Obama-bot?

        •  It is acceptable to me... (0+ / 0-)

          ...to let all the cuts expire in January.  I am tired of fighting this parsing battle when there are so many other things that we should be focused on.

          Honestly, the democrats had 2 years to address this issue- they could have changed the tax code any way they wanted to during that time.  They obviously did not have the votes or were really not very concerned about it.  And anyway, no tax cut or tax increase is "permanent"- it is always subject to revision by the government.

          and yes,of course, you can wait to judge Obama if you want.  or not judge him.  or whatever.

          I like Obama and I approve of his policies.  I just think he hasn't ever decided to use the power that he has as president- and he appears very, very weak.  And people do not tolerate weak leaders at times of crisis.

  •  If the Democratic Congress (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, accumbens, Otherday

    would have taken this up in September/October and did what the President is now (and was then) advocating, we likely would have seen a meaningfully different mid-term election result. Oh well, never accuse the Democrats of being particularly politicaly astute!

  •  Last night Darryl Issa clearly said he will work (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, sherlyle, PhilJD

    to make President Obama's remaining 2 years a success.   It was on Bill Mahars show and he clearly said it.  Has he been suspended without pay by the teapublicans yet?  He also said he will not move to impeach Obama...has Sarah Palin tweeted that he is a traitor yet?

    He also said the voters want JOBS...and a return to fiscal responsibility by elected officials...  but he argued for permanancy for the Bush tax cuts as a way to fix our economy...

    Issa said something very interesting and I have heard it from other Republicans... "we learned our lesson after the big spending of the Bush era"  and that one sentence sums up HOW the repubs won on tuesday.  Angry and or scared voters have been led to believe the BUSH and the bush years were an anathema and wont be repeated.  Then Issa, who voted lock step with the repubs to pass every BIG spending bill bush proposed called bush a BIG SPENDER while arguing to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanant  lol

    fools.

    Have the TeaPublicans fixed the economy yet?

    by KnotIookin on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:48:31 AM PDT

  •  "Lame Duck": disabled canards - the ditched car (0+ / 0-)

    metaphor needs to be extended. Not only does the BObP want the keys back, they want to bill us like lawyers for the time they had to wait.

    "calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni),Warning-Some Snark Above

    by annieli on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:49:49 AM PDT

  •  If he got the message (4+ / 0-)

    he'll expire tax cuts for the wealthy. that's the message.  the message wasn't "we really like republicans". the message was "we want faster change."

    On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

    by glutz78 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:52:43 AM PDT

  •  Not afraid of him (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, kerplunk, accumbens

    Can we really take what he says seriously? He makes all the right noises till the going gets rough and then gives the right what it wants. They're (the GOP) not afraid of him, but we should be. We someone with guts and brains. Obama is to willing to compromise away his own power. In short he's gutless.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:53:04 AM PDT

  •  yawn...is he ever going to get to manufacturing? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Major Tom, orestes1963

    When are we going to deal with the number 1 real issue out there- domestic manufacturing?

    Tax cuts?- well, whatever- it really seems like an old debate.

  •  Perfect framing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, NearlyNormal

    Perfect framing?  Hardly.  Lousy timing?  Absolutely!

    And why does the President refer to this as the "Bush Tax Cuts."  President Bush is yesterday's news.

    •  Because (4+ / 0-)

      "tax cuts" alone are generally popular, but when described as the "Bush Tax Cuts," people have good reason to think there's something wrong with them.

    •  why call them 'bush tax cuts'. (0+ / 0-)

      because he needs republican votes to make them permanent for the middle class.  if he calls them 'obama tax cuts' they will say 'no' just to keep him from having a win.  that's been their strategy since the stimulus.

      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

      by bluefaction on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:49:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  is Absolom your real name or biblical reference? (0+ / 0-)

      Absolom in the bible was the son of King David.  he is famous for going around to the people to trick them into turning against the king.  he would pretend that he was the one who really cared about them.  it was all a plot to over thrown his father and take the crown.  it was deception and betrayal at it's most intimate.

      so, are you using the name as a reference as you attempt to turn people against Obama?  cause it sounds like the kind of thing a fucking religious nut fuck would take twisted pride in.

      i'm not saying that you are doing that.  i'm just asking you if you are.

      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

      by bluefaction on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:13:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Using their rhetoric against them (4+ / 0-)

    I like this guy Barack Obama.  He's pretty neat.

    Hee hee hee.

    "Ubermensch" is German for "Douchebag"

    by meatballs on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:54:35 AM PDT

  •  Very good, Mr. President. (6+ / 0-)

    This is exactly the tack Obama should be taking.  Tell the American people how much the wealthiest are worth, how much they'll be worth with extending the tax cuts, and how much that will cost the taxpayer.  

    Bravo, Mr. President.  :)

    For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

    by ThAnswr on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:55:19 AM PDT

    •  It's kind of simple. (4+ / 0-)

      At the current tax rates, the government isn't taking in enough revenue to cover its costs.  Framing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% as borrowing is great.

      To balance the budget, we need to either take in more revenue, or decrease costs.  Obama has a plan to take in more revenue from the wealthiest 2%.  Republicans can either go along with it (which they won't), specify which spending they'd like to cut (which they won't - or, if they do, they'll lose), or be responsible for the budget deficit.

      •  That's exactly what the President is going to do. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kerry Fan, keetz4

        He's going to use their own rhetoric against them~!

        The Baggers don't like the uber rich any  more than we do~! They will be able to process this...

        Meantime...Boner et al will be getting those calls from his BagMasters:

        Where's them jobs at?

        We sent you there! How much more time do you need?

        We're watchin' you~! You better get a move on! We sent you up there and  we'll take you out~! Hurry up~!

        God. This is going to be fun to watch them self destruct.

        "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

        by Annalize5 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:53:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I hope you're right. (0+ / 0-)

      Enough already. Stand up and fight. If you lose, you lose, but at least you tried. That's all I ask.

      by gooderservice on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:34:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will MSM show this? It has ot be repeated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, sherlyle

    again and again!

    Obama needs to channel TR+FDR: Walk Softly, Carry a Big Stick and Welcome Their Hatred. Walk Softly, CHECK. Time to get on with the rest already, Barack!

    by FightTheFuture on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:55:21 AM PDT

  •  au contraire (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance, gooderservice, Willa Rogers

    The issue is unemployment. What President Obama did not explain that tax breaks for the rich will not have an impact on unemployment, while tax breaks for the middle class will result in more money being spent and therefore result in less unemployment than otherwise. The framing in view of the deficit is irrelevant.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:56:54 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg

      If tax cuts were the be all and end all to create jobs, since the current tax cuts have been in place for years, we should have more jobs than we have people to do them.

      Enough already. Stand up and fight. If you lose, you lose, but at least you tried. That's all I ask.

      by gooderservice on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:36:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good, good, good!!!!!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Annalize5, LaurenMonica

    Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have. Margaret Mead

    by byteb on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:57:22 AM PDT

  •  This is crap, (12+ / 0-)

    Aside from the fact that Obama has, predictably, caved in to Repubs, he is simply fooling himself or us or both that the temporary extension for the rich will be temporary.  All it does it put off the issue.  Do you really think the Republicans are going to let the new, temporary cut for the rich expire in 2 years?  If you do, I have a public option for HCR I'd like to sell you.

    Maybe Obama is planning to be a one-termer and just wants to kick this can to the next guy.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:58:12 AM PDT

    •  you got win last week and now you're cocky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keetz4

      i get it.  you can't let obama get back up.  you gotta keep kicking him while you've got him knocked down.

      We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

      by bluefaction on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh! you caught me. I'm a secret GOP agent! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        abraxas

        That's crap too.  I'm not the problem, Obama is the problem.  He gets knocked down and refuses to get up, asking, "Can I have some more?"  That he is still talking compromise and bipartisanship is simply pathetic.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:25:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Watch this speech get ignored in MSM and then (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zizi, abraxas, AreDeutz

    forgotten by netroots who will start demanding that Obama makes speeches like this.

  •  Dear Republicans: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, hyperstation
    Where are the jobs??

    (My mantra for the next two years)

    "I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean I love the country but I can't stand the scene." - Leonard Cohen (Democracy)

    by LamontCranston on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:59:51 AM PDT

  •  A week ago I'd have cheered on the politics of it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Major Tom, gooderservice

    Now, not so much.  Tax cuts aren't going to generate jobs.

  •  It would have been nice (5+ / 0-)

    I remember quite clearly right before Congress left DC, this particular tax cut issue was on the table and Dems decided not to address it. I remember being furious. I still am.

    If this issue was put up for a vote prior to the election, it may have made a significant change in both Dem messaging and media framing.

    Yes, great frame Obama -- it sure would have been nice to take the lead on this issue when it mattered. (This does not mean it does not matter now, but R may not have had such significant gains with clear, focused messaging like this.)

  •  I hope he sticks to this message...and his guns (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, sherlyle, bushondrugs, Otherday

    We really need to not concede squat to the Republicans.

  •  That is what he says (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, kerplunk, Nightprowlkitty
    Let's see what he does.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:01:14 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, i overestimated netroots (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zizi, AreDeutz

    nobody is waiting for the MSM to bury this before attacking Obama.

  •  Newsflash (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Major Tom, kerplunk

    No one is listening anymore. Results are the only thing that matter. Americans want to see a fighter. The President needs to decouple the tax cuts and then refuse to sign the one for millionaires. We need to reframe this issue: IMHO the way President Obama should do this is to insist that before any "negotiations" occur on this, the Republicans must come to the table with a list of cuts to pay for them. That would at least be a start.

    "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

    by irmaly on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

    •  Negotiations should start (3+ / 0-)

      with an insistence that the rich pay more. Then we compromise from there.

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:05:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pretty much it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irmaly, Major Tom, Nightprowlkitty

      To paraphrase an earlier poster, I voted for the guy, I'll support him against any Republican candidate in 2012, but if it comes down to a primary challenger for the Democratic nomination, at this point I don't know what I'd do.

      I need to see a "come what may" line drawn in the sand and I need to see incumbent Democrats across the board refuse to budge from that line.  That includes the President.

      •  I'm not thinking now ... (5+ / 0-)

        ... about 2012.  Those tax cuts need to expire now.

        It's not important that President Obama persuade the public about this.  It really isn't.  He has the power to make those tax cuts expire regardless of what the public thinks.

        I really believe that people are going to look at what he does now, rather than what he says.

        And I'll sacrifice any tax cuts for my five figure salary gladly to stop this bleeding revenue that is called tax cuts for the rich.

        •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty

          What I mean by "come what may" is that he stand firm on expiring those tax cuts in spite of whatever public outcry the Right might be able to manufacture.  I don't give a crap what scandals and investigations the Right throws his way, he had better stand on this.

          I'd gladly sacrifice my tax cut to see the truly wealthy pay more in taxes.  I make about $125K, so it would be a substantial increase on my ass, but who cares?  I probably don't pay enough as it is.

          •  If President Obama ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... really wants to bring people together, if he really wants unity, then he needs to fight for us, not make back room deals and actions based purely on political calculations.  He has to take a risk.  He has the power to do something right now, if Congress is intransigent on the tax cuts.

            If he doesn't, the divisions will not only remain, but will grow.

  •  "borrow an additional $700B from other countries" (6+ / 0-)

    Great point, Mr. President.  Keep making it, over and over.  

    A Wall Street "bonus" should not be more than what my house is currently worth.

    by bushondrugs on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:05:10 AM PDT

  •  It's always time for results. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom

    Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:05:51 AM PDT

  •  is this before or after (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom

    he signaled he would compromise on the tax cuts for the rich.

    jeese

    whiplash much??

    wait, wait.

    i just heard it on the grapevine.

    rich to keep tax cuts: best deal we could make.

    Gaia is heartbroken.

    by BlueDragon on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:08:33 AM PDT

  •  Tax cuts for the wealthy (7+ / 0-)

    Am I missing something? We have had the Bush tax cuts in effect for about 7 years and the economy tanked and we lost jobs.  Apparently the tax cuts were not a good idea so we should end them on the top 2%. It is insanity to keep them in effect and expect different results.

    Republicans must be asked "why do you  think that the tax cuts will now help help the economy and create jobs when they were an absymal  failure up to the present?"  They must not be allowed to dodge the question.

    •  Hate to say it, but (0+ / 0-)

      this is not tight economic reasoning. You haven not shown (nor likely could it be shown in a space like this discussion board) that the Bush tax cuts caused the economy to tank. At best, you note a temporal correlation. I could blame it on the rise of Lady Gaga to fame in the same period. And even on the assumption that those particular tax cuts were partial causes, someone would still need to specify precisely to what extent they were contributory. How do they stack up next to, say, the failure of the subprime mortgage market, or the collapse of bank warrant rollovers? The Republican you want to quiz would simply reject your assertion of "abysmal failure" as unproven. We would all be better off with charges we have a fair chance of demonstrating.

      •  tax cuts are why we have a big deficit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ravenwind, abraxas

        and the big deficit is one reason we didn't have a bigger stimulus. And the smaller stimulus is a reason the economy sucks so badly.

        Because of the Bush tax cuts (all of them - the middle class ones cost $2T for the upper class $0.7T), we have less flexibility in dealing with the recession.

        Basic economics.

        •  Not basic economics (0+ / 0-)

          because there is nothing self-evident about this, only a kind of plausibility that is only as on-the-surface as plausible as 3 or 4 other scenarios. Here's  the simplest kind of comeback from a tax-cutter:

          "No, you are mistaken. The tax cuts put more money in people's pockets and kept the economy afloat longer than it would have otherwise. But the collapse was due to other causes entirely."

          I'm not saying this is a great reply, but it has at least as much initial plausibility as your version. Neither version is what passes for self-evident economic explanation.

          •  it's Keynesian economics (0+ / 0-)

            For fuck's sake.

            •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

              It's what passes for Keynes via a popularized account in blogs and in the press. And even if it were "real" Keynes, it would still need a defense of its application in this particular place and under these particular times and circumstances. And even then you'd get three different economists, all self-professed Keynesians, explaining what the other two got wrong.

  •  I have an idea. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, Maverick80229

    What if we got the CBO or some other actuary to figure the impact on the IRS' annual tax haul if tax policy where the following:

    1. Figure out what the average per capita capital gains income is and tax every penny an individual earns above that amount at the earned income rate instead of the itty bitty capital gains rate.
    1. Figure out the average home value in this country and cap interest deductions at the amount one would get at the 15th year ammortization on the 30 years fixed for a home of that value.
    1. Figure out the average per capita 401k/IRA deposit per anum and cap untaxed deposits at that amount.
    1. Tax all non-domestic deposits on their way out of the country rather than on the way in.

    Call whatever amount the IRS' annual tax haul would increase by tax breaks only attainable by people making more than the average and see if we can dispose of the utterly false notion that rich people are paying anywhere near their share.

    I am not suggesting that this should actually be policy, but it's demonstrative of something.

    Secondly, ask why it is socialism to invest in physical assets in America such a infrastructure in order to create jobs, but it isn't socialism to expect my children to pay off the boatload of debt needed to give welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts?

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:09:07 AM PDT

  •  Oh, wow~!!! Now that's the guy I voted for~! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, willkath

    "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

    by Annalize5 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:10:35 AM PDT

  •  It doesn't? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom

    "He heard the message of frustration with inaction from voters, he intends to heed it, and the burden for holding up the process will clearly be passed to Republicans who will be pushing for more borrowing to reward their rich friends. It doesn't get any better than this."

    Figuring out a way to blame Rs is not the same as actually doing something.

  •  If President Obama stands his ground now, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    isabelle hayes, AreDeutz

    Republicans will be less likely to play chicken with the debt ceiling.

  •  What he said, and what he didn't say (4+ / 0-)

    This is what he said:

    I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent.

    This is what he didn't say:

    I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries by extending all the Bush tax cuts for two more years.

    He talks about making his priorities clear but he doesn't talk about making his principles clear. He made his priorities clear on the public option too and he caved. I have little confidence he's not laying the groundwork to do the same thing here. I think he's getting ready to role over on extending the tax cuts for the rich. That's what I heard in this address.

  •  Now, if Obama wants to be respected (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, kerplunk, Willa Rogers

    he will veto ANYTHING that does not increase the taxes on the wealthy.

    They have not shared, they did not trickle down their incomes, no, they have bought the piss poor Government we now have.

    People want Governments to help them, keep the streets clean and safe, heck, to build the streets as well, they want the jobs that the Pentagon budget allows (talk about socialism, there it is folks, sign your life over to the Government and they OWN you and in return, they provide housing, food, shelter and medical care).

    If Obama does not stand strong on this, he will lose his base for good, pure and simple.

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:14:52 AM PDT

    •  Marcia (0+ / 0-)

      Besides the highly inflated Pentagon Budget, we have nearly a million people in the private sector in the U.S. being paid fortunes to conduct surveillance and counter-terrorism activities. How much is that that costing us? No one in the Obama Administration will tell us. It's been like getting an audit on the FED.

      Another point: When the two stupid wars do eventually end, what is going to happen to these million or so counter-terrorism experts? In order to justify their continued existences on the public dole, who could their next targets be? Could it be us? I'm just asking.  

  •  As usual he says the right things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, kerplunk

    but in the end he will capitulate to the GOP in the name of "bipartisanship".

    Wait and see.

  •  You already know their answer...No. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, Maverick80229

    They will say anything to get those Tax Breaks extended. I say No to them. If they get enough votes to get the whole tax break extended then the President should veto the bill on principle. It's not paid for then it's deficit spending.

    Make them keep their promises! hehe...

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:17:00 AM PDT

  •  Act 1 of "Let the Bastards Hang Themselves"...! (3+ / 0-)

    Beautiful~!

    Watch this President take 'em down with that smile~!

    Grace personified.

    "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

    by Annalize5 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:21:02 AM PDT

  •  This morning's CPAN Washington Journal (5+ / 0-)

    featured the head of a group called 60's Plus, somebody Martin, a self styled arch conservative who goal in life, sand his organisation, is to repeal what he called all through, Obamacare. Especially Medicare, which Obama, he claims denying seniors their rightful die, for which they have paid into all their lives.

    The  big problem he ran into headfirst was that those pesky callers kept calling in an pointing our that it is the REPUBLICANS who are voting to privatise or abolish SS and Medicare outright.

    The fact is that Obama and the Democrats now have something to run against and Nancy Pelosi's decision to stay on as Minority leader this first statement to the nation by the President show that the Republicans are not going to waltz to the White House in a cakewalk.

    This is the way the system is supposed to work, folks.

    Its up to you whether you get their backs or  continue to snipe from the bushes.

  •  Note the weasel word - "permanent". He (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, NearlyNormal

    will compromise, again, and "extend" rich the tax cuts for two more years. Then two years more. Then it won't be his problem anymore because no one likes a coward. Look, turning the other the cheek once, twice, may be "Christian". Do it 100 times and another "C" word applies.
    Ed Scultz almost cried real tears begging this guy to please f'ing fight. Please send an e mail to the WH asking for the same.  

    •  Um...why are you not starting a petition (0+ / 0-)

      to impeach this President?

      Isn't that what you'd really like to do?

      Please.

      Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

      Whatta boor you are.

      "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

      by Annalize5 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:30:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look, a/h. Bet I spent a LOT (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom

        more time and money on BO's election and than you did. I cried when he was elected. I didn't expect a 4 year timeout from RW'ism. I expected "Change". What I got from the start was f'ing Rahm and Rahmism "R" lite. We needed Cujo and got Benji. I am sick to death of cowardice and sell-out.
        Yes, I want one term. I didn't desert him. He deserted his promise.

        •  Hopefully (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Annalize5

          There's 4 quaters to this football game.  

          Don't shit out at half time.

          "Ubermensch" is German for "Douchebag"

          by meatballs on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:57:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Bet I spent a LOT more time and money..." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SeattleProgressive

          Bet I spent a LOT more time and money on BO's election and than you did.

          And you would know that exactly, how? Truly the whine of a five year old. "Oh wah, I did more than you ever did and besides he made me cry~!"...boo fucking hoo.

          I cried when he was elected.

          Well, hell...who didn't???? That makes you more special than who exactly!?

          I didn't expect a 4 year timeout from RW'ism. I expected "Change".

          Well, hell...who didn't???? That makes you more special than who exactly!?

          What I got from the start was f'ing Rahm and Rahmism "R" lite.

          Well, hell...who didn't???? That makes you more special than who exactly!?

          We needed Cujo and got Benji. I am sick to death of cowardice and sell-out.

          Well, hell...who didn't???? That makes you more special than who exactly!?

          Yes, I want one term.

          Thank you. I just wanted to hear you say that. I don't want that. I think this man can and will turn this around. There was a time when I was as angry and bitter as you are. After this last "election" (midterms), I had to make a choice.

          I've chosen to get his back. Why? Because I cannot, cannot, beleive that the campaign he ran was all empty words and promises. There was simply too much substance to throw away. I can't do that.

          I didn't desert him. He deserted his promise.

          What if...after he got to Washington, he found a den of vipers he'd mistakenly thought were going to help him dig this country out? What if he was naive? What if, he was human and made some wrong turns on the advice of those he trusted?

          Granted, his choice of cabinet remains a mystery to me and sent up red flags.But he is what we have for now, and personally I doubt we'll see another one of his intelligence and elegance in a long time, if ever again.

          But you go on ahead and puff up and wheeze
          like an accordion. That will be helpful.

          Please do abstain though, from your "I did more than you and got fucked so you can just stfu" patter.

          It's most unflattering.

          "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

          by Annalize5 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:27:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He was already in Washington (0+ / 0-)

            and in the lion's den.  What kind of surprises could there have been for him?  And if he were incapable of contemplating the potential opposition, he should have waited until he developed a better understanding before running for president.  If he were so naive, given his experience in the senate, we are in more trouble than is presently apparent.  I hve more faith in his intelligence; his political will, not so much.

  •  Sounds (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, Crazy like a fox, ronlib

    like more already bargaining everything away. Did he say he would veto anything that had tax cuts for the wealthy in it? I don't think so. Expect the GOP to get what they want, the economy to worsen and Obama to go down in flames in 2012.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:27:02 AM PDT

  •  You Can't "Cooperate" With People Who.. (6+ / 0-)

    are DETERMINED to cut off your head, arms, and legs.

    "Bipartisanship" is not an avenue open to President Obama.  I hope he understands this before it is too late.. and it may already be!

  •  I (5+ / 0-)

    am uninterested in compromising to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for even 1 or 2 years. It gives respect to the republican argument that it will somehow hurt the economy. Bill Clinton didn't even go for that argument.

  •  I'm gonna say it (8+ / 0-)

    I don't think any of the tax cuts should be extended. If anybody is being serious about reducing the deficit and the debt, continuing our low taxes aren't going to help much. Yeah, we're only talking about removing the tax cuts for the top 2%, but how much are we going into debt to keep the tax cuts for the rest of the group?

    "I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough" -Eugene V Debs

    by jabbausaf on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:36:39 AM PDT

    •  Although (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Annalize5, AreDeutz

      That makes fiscal sense, it wouldn't be wise to do in the short term.  Increasing taxes on the middle and lower classes would decrease aggregate demand - a bad economic dice roll.

      Unless you plan on taking that increased tax money and pump it back into the economy via spending - that's not a great plan.

      Tax breaks for the upper percentile has no economic value beyond making a very select few astronomically rich.

      Tax the rich and spend it on our recovery.  Its got to be done - much to the dismay of Rove, Donahue, the Kochs and the like.

      What separates modern states from banana republics is the political will to levy against production and spend it on society.

      "Ubermensch" is German for "Douchebag"

      by meatballs on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:50:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so make them temporary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stolen water

        Tax cuts as stimulus is a Republican argument, and it's failed empirically. The Republicans made that argument during Clinton's first term, and they were wrong.

        And these are permanent tax cuts. Just like the Republicans, "we" are using the recession to make temporary Republicans tax cuts permanent. It's insane. There's a reason the liberal economists like DeLong and Krugman are depressed. Both parties are joining up to fuck up the economy.

    •  i was going to say it too! (0+ / 0-)

      but you beat me to it.

    •  What we need (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GMary

      to do is cut the military spending to a quarter of what it is. End the wars and then we can talk about raising taxes on the middle class.

    •  Seriously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abraxas

      I'm single, get zero tax breaks (no kids, no mortgage interest) and earn enough that I can't deduct a dime for the thousands of dollars in student loan interest I pay a year.  I earn around $85-90K. Roughly 20% of that goes to pay my taxes.

      (yes, I'm lucky and I also work hard -- I know I'm a Democrat and so evidently I'm supposed to be lazily sucking the government teat dry but I actually work for a living -- like a lot of Dems do.).

      Not saying I enjoy paying taxes, but my taxes aren't a hardship for me. I would gladly forego extending any tax cuts for myself (and, really, the "Bush tax cuts" weren't that big of a savings for me.) I would gladly pay more than I pay now if it moved the country forward.

      In return I want the economy improve, I want my tax money prioritized into something (HELLO -- trains and infrastructure!) besides defense for wars I don't believe in, and I want job growth for Americans.

  •  Here is some really good info/breakdown of the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, stolen water, AreDeutz

    Bush Tax cuts:

    http://www.tax.com/...

  •  E. J. Dionne (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AreDeutz

    E. J. made a very insightful comment yesterday:  that Clinton picked two or three issues -- cutting Medicare was one of them -- and drew a line in the sand.  He 'negotiated' on many of the other issues that have served us very badly, but those few key issues, he drew a non-negotiable line.  

    It was easy for the public to understand:  we save Medicare or we let Republicans cut it.  And it kept his approval numbers up (as well as job creation, of course) and swept him to victory in 1996.  

    This President has to do that, and it sounds like tax cuts might be just the place.  Now I expect the Cabal that is the Republican party to have found a message to counter that:  could we learn how to do that, please?  But it's the only path for Obama, I think.  

    •  Bad line in sand (0+ / 0-)

      I disagree. We would be best off dropping this entire issue and moving on. Obviously these tax cuts have become charged politically way out of proportion to their economic importance—the difference between $3bn and $3.7bn. The truly smart thing to do on this one would be to hem, haw and let them have their tax cut which, in the face of trillions in deficits is a very small hill of beans. Fighting on this one only uses up political capital that would better be used on a fight that is worth the candle. This ain't that fight. Give 'em a two year extension and be done.

      •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

        It is better to move on from this topic.

        Maybe it would be best politically for the white house to just say that the voters spoke in this election- and they wanted all of the tax cuts extended- regardless of what the polling said.  end of story.

        Lines in the sand are for health care, wall street reform, and a domestic manufacturing initiative.

        But I really don't like buying into the notion that he has to follow Clinton's example for what to do.  Clinton did not move this nation forward.  We need a leader who will help us transform, not one who plays mediator-in-chief.

  •  Send unconditional love to Millionaires (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reenergize

    and Billionaires that they may cultivate a attitude of gratitude and generosity.

    Stinginess and hoarding attracts fear.

    Let go of your scarcity behavior.

    Millionaires/Billionaires, don't you feel foolish being a hostage to money?

  •  Oops..Sounds like surrender to me! (0+ / 0-)

    "So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together."

    WOW..that sure sounds like surrender to me. Meanwhile the Republicans are going out of their way to make him a one term president.

    When will my president grow a pair of balls and fight these assholes. These guys are here to fight you on everything, not fucking COMPROMISE!

  •  Booyah, you rocked it, Barack. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5, AreDeutz

    And, yes, for all you 'Oh, but Presidential critics never praise the President' types, yes, yet again, I'm praising the President, as I'll continue to do every time I feel he's done something worth praising.

    Can we put that stupid strawman to rest?  Does it have to be pulled out every time there's a pie war?  Critics do indeed praise the President for things he does right.

    Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

  •  But it is ok to borrow for a temp extension (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water

    And lose you office because you increase the deficit?   Got it.  

    Why can't these people see the next attack? We deserve better politicians.

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:14:33 AM PDT

  •  Fund Alzheimer's research with taxes on rich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AreDeutz

    Fund it in the lame duck congress.  Let the Republican's try to attack THAT.

  •  I Don't Believe President Obama's Word. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Obama rhetoric (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magnetics, kerplunk

    In this era of media hype, Obama needs to come out swinging. He needs to realize an "address" isn't just a speech, it's an opportunity to show where your mettle is. Reagan knew this, Clinton knew this. Even GW Bush had someone who made him sound eloquent--re: Peggy Noonan's "thousand points of light." People get that ! Who's his speechwriter ? They should be seriously considering a new job.

    Obama doesn't show any emotion in his press conferences other than cool, calm, collected. It isn't inspiring in any way. People want some "fighting spirit" in their leaders, not a talking head. I was never a huge fan of Ted Kennedy but you always knew where his heart was on every utterance. Re: Ted Kennedy's 1980 convention delivery here for an example: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/...  Of particular note: "Forty ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women." God, truer words never spoken, true 80 years ago, true in 1980 and true today.  As many recall, Kennedy ended with : And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

       "I am a part of all that I have met
       To [Tho] much is taken, much abides
       That which we are, we are --
       One equal temper of heroic hearts
       Strong in will
       To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

    For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

    For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

    We need a President who communicates like this !

    •  Harry Truman quotes (0+ / 0-)

      Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.

      I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.

      •  thom hartmann played this truman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        meatballs

        soundbite:

        "the people know that the Democratic Party is the people's party, and the Republican party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be.

        the printed word doesn't do this justice. he said it with oomph! can you imagine obama saying this? we used to have defiant dems with guts and gumption. who knew?

  •  bang for the buck (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, raincrow, AreDeutz

    what a dollar of stimulus puts back into the economy when spent on...

     title=

    via

    tax cuts aren't stimulative at all. is it smart to go into debt in order to sell a tax cut that, as far as i can tell, is purely political.

    just the interest alone for borrowing the money in order to pay for the iraq war cost $700 billion dollars.

    what's the price tag for the middle class tax cut? obama doesn't say.

    •  $3 trillion for the middle class tax cut (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, stolen water, AreDeutz

      There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

      From Ezra Klein: Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context

      There's a nice graph from the CBO showing the damage to deficit by making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

      •  $3.9 trillion added onto this... (0+ / 0-)

        senator judd gregg:

        But there is no question we didn't do a good job on restraining the growth of government, and we spent a lot of money we didn't have. Things like the [Medicare] Part D drug program were truly a big mistake from the standpoint of fiscal policies. The Part D drug program alone added an $8 trillion unfunded liability to the federal books. If we were going to put that program on the books, we should have paid for it.

        the figures for the interest alone on the money borrowed takes my breath away. i don't understand why obama doesn't articulate how deeply bush/republicans put us into debt.

  •  Does It Really Matter What Obama Says? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    President Boehner is in charge now.

  •  Good on ya (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    khyber900, AreDeutz, keetz4

    great address, back to his jedi-master form.  Bravo!

  •  Billion Dollar Boehner (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5, AreDeutz, meatballs

    It's important to point out that as Speaker of the House Billion Dollar Boehner will be provided luxury air transportation wherever he wants to go by the US Air Force, paid for by all of us tax payers.  We'll pay to take him and his buddies anywhere he wants to go to exclusive golf outings, taning salons, resorts, etc. and we'll all pick up the billion dollar tab.

    Billion Dollar Boehner also supports extending budget busting tax bailouts for billionaires rather than providing relief to real working Americans.

    Let's make sure this information gets out there.  We need to hammer Billion Dollar Boehner and the Republicans continuously with info like this so the narative and lable sticks.  Wouldn't it be great if everone even the less politically inclined started referring to Boehner as Billion Dollar Boehner, that they immediately associate him and the republicans with wasting billions of tax dollars?

    •  The Right wing noise machine (0+ / 0-)

      has been screaming about Nancy Pelosi flying around on the US Air Force jets let's see if they continue to scream about it when Boner is doing it.

      I am not holding my breath.

      They are hypocrites to the 9th degree.

      •  That's why (0+ / 0-)

        We need to push the narrative because they will never speak of it once Billion Dollar Boehner is Speaker.  And regardless of whether or not Pelosi or Hastert were provided withthe same service...  And whether or not you agree with the reasoning or not.  We juust need to continue to point out where and how he and the Republican'ts are wasting tax money.  Lets not fool ourselves they'll do it to us when we're back in power whether or not we do it to them now, so we pretty much have nothing to lose_ but an opportunity to define them and tarnish their brand in the eyes of the american people.

        remember it's Billion Dollar Boehner.

  •  I like this speech much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AreDeutz

    better.

    No more Mr. Nice Guy . . .

    by thenekkidtruth on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:45:24 AM PDT

  •  Is that tough enough and clear enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    for the liberal peanut gallery?????

    One thing that the White House and progressive media have to work together on is to amplify and explain the administration's positions and policies to the base, instead of the constant criticism.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:50:50 AM PDT

    •  I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      Great point. Take the battle to them, not let it overwhelm you.

    •  No, it's not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      He's waffling again after just a few weeks ago saying he would not extend the tax cuts for the rich, period. Now he's saying he doesn't want to extend the tax cuts for the rich permanently. So, in other words, he'll be fine to extend them for another couple years, when he might well be out of office. I also heard nothing about extending unemployment benefits, which must happen in this lame-duck session as they are set to expire at the end of November.

  •  Sure, whatever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    Let me know when you capitulate, Mr. President.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:52:13 AM PDT

  •  It's like taking tax cuts from a baby. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, AreDeutz

    No really, it is. Is there any clearer way of saying this? Maybe we need to borrow John Shadegg's granddaughter and take money from it on the house floor.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    "Maddy doesn't want a filthy rich winger to rifle through her drawers for her lunch money, but that's what's going to happen if we extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%..."

    OK, that was gross, but you get the point.

    Spellcheck for DADT is DAFT. Fitting, that.

    by DirtyLibrul on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:02:25 AM PDT

  •  Imagine if Democrats (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, abraxas, AreDeutz

    had the ability to collectively pound this framing home day after day?

    Imagine this: they'd win.

  •  The truth is. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, Ninbyo

    People who accumulate lots of money resist paying taxes and love to see their money grow by lending it back to its source, our government.  Their preferred alternative to "tax and spend" is "lend and spend."

    It's a three-fer agenda.  They don't pay taxes; they collect interest on bonds (guaranteed w. no risk); and the interest income is tax-exempt to boot.

    Why should we continue to subsidize the life-styles of the rich?

    The conservative mind relies mainly on what is plain to see.

    by hannah on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:07:34 AM PDT

  •  If the Democrats don't hold the line on this (0+ / 0-)

    I am done with them.

  •  That Explains The Difference Between Capitulation (0+ / 0-)
  •  Borrow and Spend (0+ / 0-)

    Spend is a key word because many (or most) do not equate tax cuts with spending

  •  Yay, framing! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    patsy in pgh, raincrow

    About time!  Next step: repeat, repeat, repeat, until the public understands tax breaks for the filthy rich adds 700B to the debt.  Not worth it for trickle down dreams.

  •  Call their (0+ / 0-)

    offices and say that you know what they care about most when America is falling apart is the the super rich just aren't rich enough.

    And that you expect them to let the tax cuts for the rich expire.

    And if they don't, tell them not to open their mouths about the deficit. NOT ONE MORE WORD ABOUT IT.

  •  But we can borrow $2 trillion to make... (0+ / 0-)

    ...everybody else's cuts permanent?

    It's called the Dodd-Frank bill. What else do you need to know?

    by roguetrader2000 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:28:49 PM PDT

  •  Confirmed: Here Come Bush Tax Cuts for The Rich (0+ / 0-)

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

  •  Progressive Dem Kossacks are you Happy? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    I'll bet not - just like me. The Obamabot Clap Louder crap is not playing well in my book. How about yours? Progressive Kosacks who are not Obamabots also worked our azzes off 24/7 in 2008 to empower Obama. It seems reasonable none of us are too happy at the moment. What transpired the last 2 years is beyond lame. A major failure. I held my myself back from being overly critical of this Administration this whole time. Always hoped that the Obana Administration would "get it". Nope.

    Obama and the White House have created a real mess for Progressive Democrats. Look - all that watered down crap for legislation the "Elected Class" of Dems created and passed have now as of this mid-term election been successfully labeled by the GOP as "Liberal, Left-Wing", "Ulta-Progressive" oh HORROR! Makes me mad as hell. Look - we all realize most everything this White House and Congress did these last 2 years is so far from Progressive it makes ones head swim. Who cares? The Elected Dems let them do it. Oh course they did. They loathe us. Who cares now if Progressives take the blame for the last 2 years. Bye See Ya!

    Tell me this? How will we ever pass REAL Progressive efforts now?

    The GOP will find a reasonable candidate to hood-wink America in 2012. Betcha. A real possibility. Especially since the GOP base despise Obama (sad though true). Makes it fairly easy to rally the base Fall of 2012. Yes America could be back to the GOP horror show as soon as 2013. Now in 2012 will the Democrat Party not only have BillC around our Party Necks like a ball-n-chain also now - Obama and Company for taking Democrat Lameness to a new level. The GOP are salivating at the prospects..

    I HATE Bi-Partisan. Hate it. Since the early 90's it has become code for Democrats bend over and the GOP screws them awesomely each and every time. I thought in 2006 when Democrats started act like ones we were on to something sustainable. ha ha. Nope. America could care less about playing "nice" in politics. Bi-partisan is just crap - always a losing strategy in rough and touble politics. Democrats continue to prove it. The GOP never plays "nice" and America rewards them. Democrats how hard is that to understand?  

    Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over with the same results. When are elected Democrats going to get the message?

    The Clintonistas wrecked the Party Brand with Bi-partisan and Triangulation behavior. Obama and the White House Staff have and still to this very day keep up that learned dysfunction. Even taken it to a new level. Today for example > right here > "I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here." No that is not true. Well - I'll back off gien the new reality of Tuesday - sort of true now that the Dems successfully gave the House right back to them.

    If Obama had started in January 2009 - on Day One like FDR or TRUMAN kicking some serious GOP azz (they deserved it) instead of kissing up to them in the "spirit of cooperation"  we would have had a fantastic day Tuesday. Guaranteed. He has little of their qualities that worked in the past. Every Obama decision is Leadership by committee or staff. Awful. Will he ever get it?

    Don't get me wrong. I do/did dig Obama. He is a very nice sincere Guy. Just average. This election was a devastating rebuke of him and the "elected class" of Democrats. Lame Duck is a fitting description him now. Lame is the way he handles the GOP. One term is now likely (though I hope not). I will work to re-elect him at this point - no problem. The thought of a GOP President again in 2013 is a nightmare. Could happen though. It is time to take a mid-term evaluation of Obama and he gets a C+. My 2 cents.

    2010 > Elect Rebecca Kaplan - Mayor of Oakland ------ Jerry Brown - CA Governor

    by AustinSF on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:17:20 PM PDT

  •  I'm inclined to hope they let the clock run out (0+ / 0-)

    if the Dems can't get Obama's bill past.

    But, hey that's me

    New improved bipartisanship! Now comes in a convenient suppository!!! -unbozo

    by Unbozo on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:48:28 PM PDT

  •  All this tax cutting is horseshit (0+ / 0-)

    If taxes really killed the economy Norway would be the poorest country on earth. As it happens it's actually the richest.

  •  13,395 (0+ / 0-)

    That's the number of views the President's address has gotten on YouTube as of right now.  This is not reaching enough people.

    Time to use Facebook, Twitter, email, bumper stickers, yard signs, anything to get the message out. The MSM have abandoned us and no one is listening to Obama any more.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:59:28 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site