Obama’s message on debt is just right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-message-on-debt-is-just-right/2011/07/11/gIQAsXl28H_blog.html

Obama’s message on debt is just right
By Stephen Stromberg

snip//

“If not now,” the president repeated, “when?”

Obama implicitly repudiated the strangely common notion that the 2012 election, which will likely result in more divided government, will give one party a clear mandate to restructure the federal budget without compromising its ideological preferences. So the president said he would continue to push for the largest agreement possible now.

As he did so, Obama called out Republicans, informing them that they will need to give on something to get an agreement. But he was careful to praise House Speaker John Boehner, saying that the GOP leader is negotiating in good faith, that he is “a good man who wants to do right by the country.” And Obama was hard on his own party: “The vast majority of Democrats would prefer, frankly, not to do anything about these debt and deficit problems.”

“I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done,” Obama said. Will Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) develop the spines to take heat from their base, too?

The president, finally, made a strong case for solving America's budget problems so that the country can afford efficient, future-oriented federal investment. Not wasteful government spending or a cushy, cradle-to-grave welfare state. Things that increase national wealth over time, such as roads, bridges and medical research. With a crushing bill from Medicare or the full realization of the GOP government-shrinking crusade, such things wouldn't be possible.

Is Obama just making a play for the middle? Possibly. But outside of conservative circles — in which raising a nickel of federal revenue anywhere, anytime is apostasy and federal budgeting is too often an exercise in ideological fantasy — the president sounded measured, diplomatic and fair. If he reaps political benefits from that, he should.

:popcorn:

Oh, and knr, BTW.

Obama has sold out progressives repeatedly. Rahm basically called us traitors. Obama is selling seniors (and younger workers) out.
Obama - if this is the best deal you get - well then you SUCK as a leader, or maybe you don't. Maybe it's just that I expected a PROGRESSIVE leader. My bad.

Where, exactly, did he say that? :shrug:

If you're going to hate on Obama, at least stick to reality.

Don't get angry when people compare you to a RW pundit. Because this sounds exactly like the Republicans during the health care reform. Disgusting.

Leads with "Obama the Fighter" story. ...Says POTUS is playing this perfectly (can I get a "247-dimensional chess" metaphor?) and the Repugs are boxed in, lookiin like fools.

IF the Repubs. allow $1 billion in tax hikes, KNOWING that the Repubs. will NEVER accept tax increases, thus looking reasonable and therefore putting the blame on the Repubs.

(Hippie being anyone to the left of Evan Bayh)

How about after the 2012 elections when by most reports Republicans were likely to lose seats in the House, and possibly even control of the House given the extent of voter anger over the Ryan Budget plan that would have turned Medicare into a voucher program. Of course that was way back when, when the public thought Democrats were dependable defenders of the economic safety net, especially Social Security and Medicare.

Now, by way of contrast, is when Tea Party type representation in the House has most likely reached its zenith. Choosing now to negotiate a mega deal that will have very far reaching and important consequences is like winning a coin toss and then giving the other team home advantage.

This is not about "responsibility." It is about priorities. What do we prioritize: the welfare of poor people, the elderly, and the sick, or the ability of very rich people to be unimpeded in becoming even richer?

By refusing to talk this way, by instead insisting on remaining in the middle of two "irresponsible" political parties, he gives up to the field to the Republican view of priorities.

Like Canada?

Those lazy good for nothings north of the border.

:sarcasm:

Chuckles! Where's that damned woodchuck?

Just in case, the Congressional Dems need to stick together and vote NO! on any detrimental proposals to the social safety net.