FLASHBACK: Last Week, Dems Called Spending Freeze 'Fiscal Snakeoil'

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lariokie

January 26, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to mike from Arlington

If not, then why the hell did he trot it out now? This is typical of this administration. I am beginning to think Obama is a stealth Republican.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EastWest

January 26, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to lariokie

Politics. Gotta play to the base. Trouble is, Obama's decided to play to the Republican base.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to EastWest

Good one.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to EastWest

FOX and the right-wing screech machine appears to have successfully moved the perception of the "center" somewhere to the right of Reagan. Anyone to the left of that center is called a Marxist, Communist, etc.

Obama, apparently being weak in his principles, has seemingly bought into this, so he thinks his "base" is the Blue-Dog Democrats and the "moderate" Republicans.

Sen Kennedy's loss is the result, so what do the idiot Dems do? Move further to the "center".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to billpaustin

Exactly correct. Think about it: after just about destroying the country (if not the world) the GOP gets decimated at the polls. So the Dems have an astoundingly talented and popular president, an overwhelming majority in the House, and a super-majority in the Senate. Yet is the GOP POV that the Dems embrace. You just can't make shit like this up.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cube3u

January 26, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to lariokie

Independents are concerned about the deficit according to the polls. Both parties need them if they want to win elections.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PJCoco

January 27, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to lariokie

When I said the same thing about Obama in a separate TPM blog last week, I got the following (correct) reply:

"HELLOOOO, that train left the station a long time ago!"

Now even CAP bigwigs are having trouble explaining this ObamaRahma Repub!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hunter

January 26, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to mike from Arlington

I had the same reaction. TPM is really overselling the statement from last week. They are making "people who say we can fix our whole fiscal situation with a spending freeze" into "people who advocate a spending freeze." That's just not the same thing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Economides

January 26, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to hunter

The author was talking about the hypocritical Republicans who feign concern over the deficit when in fact they supported all the polices that fundamentally caused the problem, refuse to support the one major effort to deal with the long-run problem of health care cost growth on the grounds that "it costs too much," and promote other such chicken shit solutions. To pretend he was talking about Obama's proposal or even something like his proposal, which is not really a freeze at all is willful misinformation.

The author happens to think the deficit is a real and serious problem and that we need to real and serious things to address it: Raise taxes, rational spending policies and control health care costs. The idea that Obama is not pursuing this strategy is another willful misdirection.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cambridgeMR

January 26, 2010 1:24 PM

Spending freeze amidst 10% unemployment, 20% real unemployment, increases in long term structural unemployment, and 6 unemployed people for every job opening?

I can't support this kind of stupidity.

I'm turning in my Obama supporter card right now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

inokeah

January 26, 2010 1:25 PM

Confusion is the name of the game. Remember when the press corp noticed a foul smell on the Obame campaign airliner? Like someone had cut a Plouffe. These are his attributes, Oranizers get used to these things.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drjackanapes

January 26, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to inokeah

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RuperttheBear

January 26, 2010 1:26 PM

BHO is a humble man. God forbid he avoid a mistake that FDR made.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EastWest

January 26, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to RuperttheBear

There's humility. And there's cowardice.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

January 26, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to EastWest

'Twas snark, methinks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

January 26, 2010 1:27 PM

"The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are underfunded," Obama the candidate.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Economides

January 26, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro

If you intend to call someone a hypocrite, you might wanna look in the mirror andmake sure you are not being a jackass.

The policy he announced in fact is not an across the board freeze that eliminates discretion and priority setting as McCain was proposing. But knowing that would require actually listening in stead of jerking your knee.

Basically he is creating a cap, actually a partial cap cause lots of stuff is exempted, and saying he's gonna increase some things and decrease others. In other words he intends to wield a scalpel.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex Carson

January 26, 2010 11:38 PM in reply to Economides

So he in fact is not endorsing a cap, according to your definition? Why use the term then?

McCain also wanted to increase spending in some areas, decrease it in others, so regardless of the absolute definition of "spending cap" Obama and McCain's positions aren't too different. Did McCain use the term "spending freeze," maybe, but if you ever took a gander at his website he didn't advocate a spending freeze in the sense of "whatever was budgeted last year shall be budgeted for that exact same item next year."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lalo35adm

January 26, 2010 1:28 PM

Last week Gibbs said on TV that a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for Barack Obama.

So??

We're running over $200 defict a month. This tempest in a teapot is artificially created to make it sound big and important.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cambridgeMR

January 26, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Lalo35adm

Huh?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Iggy Pop

January 26, 2010 1:30 PM

I am totally bummed. Obama's spending "freeze" together with Obama's deficit "commission" is the next chapter of inverted totalitarianism. Another crack in the crumbling wall that once was called democracy-- a government of the people by the people . . . one person, one vote. For example, Social Security is solvent. It has a surplus of over 3 trillion dollars. Yet the American people are told it is going bankrupt. One of many Big Lies I am told all the time. Another lie is that my vote matters. Nonsense, corporations run the show. Obama is now leading the charge to win the favor of his corporate masters so he can get reelected. Deficits will be cut on the backs of little people like me. The only reason Social Security is going "bankrupt" is because it is a slush fund for high finance and the industrial-military complex. Social Security is meant to only pay for pensions and medicaid. Instead, the money I contribute from my miserly paycheck to my retirement account go to buy ceo's yachts and to pay for bombs that kill civilians in Afghanistan. In a month or two the commission will recommend to raise my Social Security taxes and to raise the eligibility age for me to receive Social Security. The spending freeze will balance the budget for Wall Street, and common folk will be even more economically marginalized. The Enlightment promised PROGRESS. All I see for the past 50 years is regression. I should be retiring earlier, not later, and the middle class should be expanding, not decreasing. Corportaions are monsters who must keep expanding and expanding, swallowing up every penny they can. In this case, the penny is my pitiful and pathetic pension and what few services the government provides me. I'll never see that money, not because Social Security will go bankrupt or because the deficit will bring economic chaos, but because corporations will claim it. Yes, Marx was right, the nature of Capitalism is that it must have more and more. But one day, there will be absolutely no more profit to be made. The maximum threshold will be met and this whole house of cards will come crashing down just like Marx predicted. It will be grand, and I'm afraid violent. But what can be expected from our pathetic species? We are a violent, parochial, irrational, jealous and petty species that most of the time destroys anything beautiful it comes across.

Am I a little too cynical and pessimistic? Perhaps, but I think not. I refuse to be naive. I have vowed to no longer believe like I did in lap dogs like Obama who promise "change." He's turned out just to be a very competent manager of empire and corporate power. Bush was incompetent. They brought Obama in to clean-up his mess. Wall street and the military-industrial complex approve of their good little puppy dog.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Iggy Pop

Okay, so it's settled. The leftist haters of Obama are all followers of Marx.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

And the rightist haters of Obama are all followers of Josef Stalin. What's your point?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to wbgonne

Stalin was a Marxist.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed

January 26, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

I thought Stalin was a Stalinist.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Schmed

I think our confusion stems from the supposition that anyone who doesn't subscribe to anti-government views is, by definition, a Marxist. Of course, that means the anti-government clowns are anarchists. Two choices only: I'll go with Marx.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lariokie

January 26, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Schmed

Obama is an Obamist.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

January 26, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to lariokie

Truer words were never typed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drjackanapes

January 26, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I'm a Dr. Jackanapist. No one else is ready for my bold new vision.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hunter

January 26, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to Schmed

Was Christ a Christian then?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benintn

January 26, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to hunter

No, Christ was theistic Jew.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed

January 26, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to hunter

He probably wouldn't say so. However, I think Stalin would cop to Stalinism.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hunter

January 26, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to Schmed

First off, I was just making a joke. And for that matter, I thought you were too.

But since we're on the subject, I'm not sure I see a point in attributing anyone to their own ism. After all, then we would all just be our own "meists." The point of being a somethingist is that you are a devotee of that something. You get to have an ism named after you because people follow you. I would call a "Stalinist" a "follower of Stalin" like a "Chistian" is (ostensibly) a "follower of Christ."

This also lends itself to a nice (if highly oversimplified) progression of Soviet (and other communist) leaders. Lenin would of course be the Marxist. But his innovations ultimately had less to do with communist thought and more to do with party organization and terror allowing a very small cadre of highly-motivated people to impose their will on everyone else. Stalin of course canonized all that; I would call Stalin a "Leninist." But he took things far further, taking the terror to its logical conclusion (the purges) and shrinking the powerful cadre to 1 with his cult of personality. And then of course he had his own innovations, perhaps most importantly the strong state and the necessity of industry. As such, there followed various "Stalinists." But I wouldn't call Stalin one. And as for whether he would "cop to Stalinism" I'm not sure what to say; I think he would admit to having ruled in a way that we today call "Stalinist" but I doubt he ever used the term. And I'm pretty sure there are documented cases of him terming himself "Leninist" or "Marxist-Leninist." But I'm not looking to go hunting for such things at the moment.

Anyway, I found this a highly interesting thought exercise. But don't make the mistake of attributing any particular weight to what I've said. I'm neither a historian nor a linguist ;-)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed

January 27, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to hunter

Actually, I was making a joke (both times). But, as you noted, there was an interesting vein of truth to examine. On the Jesus vein: Jesus was a devoted Jew and was in no way seeking to start a new religion. He was actually trying to break the grip that the Pharisees held on interpreting the Torah and thereby the control that they maintained on the everyday life of the people. Jesus thought that the temple managers were corrupt and false prophets. There is some speculation that Jesus was actually an Essene, although there is not much evidence to sustain this theory.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Ha! In name only.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tintin

January 26, 2010 1:32 PM

"The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are underfunded," Obama the candidate."

This is also Obama the president, based on the news reports. The cuts won't be across the board, and some programs will get more than they are getting now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Tintin

How dense can these critics get?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

January 26, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

"A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics...

And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

-Paul Krugman

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/26/obama-freeze/

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

January 26, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro

many economists have blasted the plan for its potentially anti-stimulative effects and its focus on spending that is not the root cause of the country’s long-term deficits. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that the freeze is “appalling on every level…shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that the freeze “will make it impossible for [Obama] to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important.” U.C. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong added “this is a perfect example of fundamental unseriousness: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit…come up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy without tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way.”

And at its core, Obama’s decision cedes to the right-wing both the idea that blanket cuts are necessary and the notion that cuts should be focused on domestic programs while defense spending goes untouched. And already, the right-wing is claiming the freeze as a victory, with the National Review’s Jim Geraghty writing, “if the arguments in the coming years are between spending freezes and spending cuts, then we’ve already won.”

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:32 PM

I think it is a great idea! We definitely need to freeze spending on jobs, infrastructure, social services, and all that. Of course we wouldn't dream of touching the defense budget. That is too small already.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lalo35adm

January 26, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to billpaustin

the stupidest comment of the day.

key words: discretionary; non-defense; temporary.

social services are not discretinary

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Lalo35adm

Care to respond to my point that defense spending is not affected, while domestic spending is? You think our military is under-funded?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to billpaustin

There's two wars on...

Did you not see the headlines about the Bahgdad bombings yesterday? They need all the help they can get over there...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Yeah, let's send more troops into Iraq. If we're doing Bush Redux let's do it right!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

I remember when the Democratic based was energized by the abject failure of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Candidate Obama made us happy when he also talked about how the war was wrong.

I guess that is all forgotten now .... the "war" is its own justification now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to billpaustin

If we're going to finish the job we need more troops, not less. Bush never committed anywhere close the level of ground troops needed to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Well, why the fuck aren't you there?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to wbgonne

I'm old (47) and fat. If they really want me they can have me. LOL!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Volunteer. I'm sure there's something you could do. Find out. Otherwise stop braying about how these wars are essential while the well-being on ordinary Americans is optional.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

A soldier from my home state of Texas was killed in Iraq. He was 50.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Iggy Pop

January 26, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to billpaustin

Sad, so very sad.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Overreach THIS!

January 26, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to billpaustin

I am sorry for the loss. I have also lost friends in Iraq.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hunter

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Spoken like a true neocon...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

We need to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined because of a handful of suicide bombers?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to billpaustin

Do you think anyone (Democrat or Republican) is going to touch the defense budget, in an election year, while we are in two wars?

The "but defense costs us more" attack is disingenuous...

Additionally, it's incredible that people think that Obama can simply proceed as if deficits don't matter when clearly the public (according to multiple polls) think it does.

If you want to fault Obama for not more effectively arguing the Keyesian approach, fine. But, we can't simply disregard the current political environment, particularly if people are actually concerned about Democrats' standing going into the midterms. [If you're not, that's another story. But, clearly Obama is.]

I will say again that I think people are overreacting to this. Based on the details that have been released, I think the cuts will be relatively minimal. Additionally, spending will actually be INCREASED in some key areas (e.g., job creation).

This is not the "across-the-board" freeze that McCain proposed during the campaign. Instead, it seems to be a more targeted effort to slash waste and move money to programs (many of which are Democratic priorities) that are in need of boosts, such as education.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

The "but defense costs us more" attack is disingenuous

Not nearly as disingenuous as pretending wars are free.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to wbgonne

Who's pretending that wars are free?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

Bush did. And Obama is following in his footsteps by suggesting that wars must be fully-funded no matter what while domestic programs are frivolities that should be defunded.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to wbgonne

Thank you for clarifying. Of course, Bush did. He didn't even put the wars in the budget. But, comparing what Bush did with the fact that Obama put the wars in the budget -- for all to see the full costs -- is a stretch, to say the least.

No one is pretending that the wars are free. And, if you think it's sound politics for Obama to call for a cut in the defense budget while engaged in two wars, something's seriously wrong.

It's baffling that the same people who are saying that Obama is "insane" for proposing what seems to a relatively limited spending freeze, think that he should propose to cut the military budget right now. I mean, if you think the spending freeze won't help Democrats, fine. But, do people not really understand that asking the Congress to cut the military budget right now would be offering up the Democrats for slaughter? Republicans wouldn't need to even say a word about it, because most people simply would not be able to fathom why we would be cutting the defense budget while their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, friends, neighbors are still in harm's way. It's a non-starter... In a year or two, perhaps... But not right now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

What Obama should do is call for a review of defense spending, and promise to cut out the waste and fat in that. He could point out the enormous sums that we pay contractors. He could mention that 75% of our aid to Iraq is wasted in fraud and corruption.

Instead, he declares that out of bounds at the beginning; so that domestic spending is all he can work on.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/obama-calls-for-review-of-how-government-contracts-are-awarded/

January 26, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to billpaustin

You mean, like he did here:

or here:

"Defense Spending Cuts May Pose Risk to Boeing, Lockheed Weapons"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVvHsMfAVWr4

These efforts to rein in spending haven't been limited to domestic programs.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

That is good, except for this:

"The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010."

So an 8% rise in defense spending, and cuts to what is left. That is Obama's solution.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/26/putting-hatchets-vs-scapels-debate-about-budget-freeze-ice

January 26, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to billpaustin

But, it's not simply "cuts to what's left"... That's the point that I've been making. Certain funding will be frozen, while other funding will be increased:

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

Here are a couple of quotes from Candidate Obama on the Iraq war:

''We continue to be in a war that should never have been authorized,'' Mr. Obama told an audience in Iowa last week,

''I am proud of the fact that way back in 2002, I said that this war was a mistake.''

Covering the election, the NYT says:
"Senator Barack Obama is running for president as one of the few candidates who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, a simple position unburdened by expressions of regret or decisions over whether to apologize for initially supporting the invasion." -and- "As Mr. Obama has introduced himself in the opening weeks of his candidacy, few subjects have garnered more applause than his criticism of the war."

Not much applause anymore, is there?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to billpaustin

How is that relevant to the conversation?

Obama opposed the war in Iraq so he shouldn't propose a discretionary spending freeze? I don't see the connection. Perhaps, you could explain it to me?

By the way, it seems that you might not have noticed (and few around here are talking about it), but President Obama is winding down the war in Iraq:

"Marines leave Iraq in first wave of U.S. forces out"
http://www.gazette.com/articles/iraq-92558-size-forces.html

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

It seems simple enough to me. The economy is in trouble, the populace is hurting, the infrastructure is crumbling, un-employment is high.

And the President's solution is to cut funds for any of that domestic stuff, and continue full funding for the mistaken war he campaigned against.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CT Voter

January 26, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to billpaustin

cut funds for any of that domestic stuff

I appreciate your frustration. I am feeling some of it myself. But he's not proposing to cut funds for any of that "domestic stuff". Some areas will be boosted, some cut. We don't know at this point what he's planning. Save your outrage for that day.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to CT Voter

But see, with Obama, we never know what he is planning. He'll just leave it up to the corporatists in congress and "stay above the fray".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to CT Voter

What we DO know is that funding won't be cut for the mistaken war the Obama campaigned against. He is all for it now, apparently.

You see, there was a large feeling that the Bush administration was illegitimate, that their actions were wrong, and possibly illegal. That the invasion of Iraq was done with a lie. Many of us were outraged.

When Obama said he agreed with us, that the war was a mistake, he got the loudest applause. Once elected, he turned his back on all that, and on us.

Now he seems to be the same lying, slippery politician that the others were. It really doesn't matter much what he says he is going to do, now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to billpaustin

You mean the Obama that's winding down the war now? You mean that he's "all for the war" that he's still called misguided as President?

To be blunt, you're delusional if you think any President will simply come into office and immediately cut off funding for a war the nation is actively engaged in waging.

If you don't see the problems -- logistical, moral, and political -- with doing so, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Again, per the article I linked to above, though you're not hearing about it, the war in Iraq is being wound down: we're not longer in Iraqi cities, some brigades have returned home, all the Marines are leaving (or have left)... It's one thing if you don't agree with the timetable for the withdrawal, but let's not pretend that Obama came in and endorsed some open-ended commitment there; there's a firm date to end our involvement there.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

I guess you are right, we are on track to spend only $136 billion in 2010 in the wars. Iraq's share is only $65 billion for this year. It is winding down.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to billpaustin

I agree with CT Voter... The plan seems to be to freeze spending in wasteful areas, so that more money can be spent where needed, such as job creation and initiatives to help the middle class.

And, I think it's telling that you're calling it "domestic stuff" -- the details are still largely unknown. That's why I don't understand why people are going ballistic over something that they don't even know all the details about. It's irrationally reactionary.

I think the reaction may be an offshoot of the current frustration with the Obama administration, but that still doesn't excuse it. Again, the details matter here... And even based on the initial details, this isn't going to be the "hard" freeze that some are hyping it to be.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

I am calling it "domestic stuff" since that is what they said they were going to freeze. NON DEFENSE -- ie, domestic.

I will be very glad to be wrong, if he manages to freeze defense spending.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

IndyLinda

January 26, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to billpaustin

I tend to think that is a move to show how empty the Republican opposition is. They will clearly deride it (and already have), but it will be fun to watch them chase their tails for a while as they try to figure out how to simultaneously bash a spending freeze while claiming to stand for fiscal responsibility.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to IndyLinda

What will happen is the Republicans will say that Obama has not gone far enough, and that he is focusing on keeping "socialist" programs alive, at the expense of stuff like abstinence funding. He will most likely cave, again, and cut more from the progressive causes.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to billpaustin

By the way, just because defense spending isn't being "frozen" that doesn't preclude additional cuts in defense spending. [Some (hard-won) cuts have already been implemented in defense.]

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Lalo35adm

Actually, some social services ARE discretionary. And Obama's got an answer for the one's that aren't discretionary, too: deficit commission.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:42 PM

"Those who claim that we could get the budget back to sustainability if we only cut out earmarks, or say that the solution is to simply freeze discretionary spending, are just peddling fiscal snake oil."

Thank you for emphasizing this statement, TPM. I haven't seen one person claim that the targeted spending freeze is going to "get the budget back to sustainability." In fact, so far, every administration official that has spoken about this has labeled it a "start" toward bringing our budget back in line.

So, does that negate the entire "snake oil" juxtaposition that you're trying to make?

[By the way, Obama did campaign on bringing our budget back in line. And, while he rejected McCain's "across-the-board" spending freeze, which would have affected entitlement programs, he never rejected outright a more limited spending freeze, which is what this one seems to be.]

In fact, Yglesias describes what's been proposed as the following:

[Obama is] “aiming for what you might call a ‘cut and invest’ strategy — slashing certain programs and boosting others. And I think anyone who looks at it would have to admit that there is, in fact, a lot of discretionary spending on programs of little value.”

I fault the administration for leaking this proposal with so few details; the details absolutely matter here. But, I fault news orgs for hyperventilating about this, and promoting overreaction among the public, particularly without knowing the full details.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CT Voter

January 26, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

I haven't seen one person claim that the targeted spending freeze is going to "get the budget back to sustainability."

No. And everyone (including me, when I first heard of this) appears to be interpreting this announcement as meaning an across-the-board spending freeze, which it clearly isn't.

Either way, though, this just looks like pandering on the part of the WH. And if the plans to do this were in the works for some time, better communication is needed. Again.

I can't shake the notion, sadly, that he is turning into a Charlie Brown president.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hoppycalif2

January 26, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

If Matt said that, he is wrong. Not that there isn't waste, there is always waste in every program that spends money, because we are human. He is wrong in even implying that cutting that waste or redirecting it will have any effect on the overall budget. Read where the money goes sometime. Very little of it, in total, goes to discretionary spending. Almost all of it goes to entitlements and defense spending, with the next in line being interest on the debt. Entitlements are only going up, not down, and interest on the debt will go up substantially as today's super low interest rates go back to normal rates, so that leaves the defense budget as the only place where budget cuts have any effect. But, those are not in play here. So, we can now confidently say that Obama is a snake oil salesman.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to hoppycalif2

I don't think that he was saying that discretionary spending is a large part of the budget. I think he's making a argument that, relative to other aspects of the budget, we spend too much money on certain programs that should receive less funding than others. He seems to be saying that we should pare back where we're not getting our bang for the buck, and ramp up in areas that we are or that are in greater need. Ultimately, it's an argument for a wiser allocation of funds, which how I've also interpreted (based on the details known at this point) this "spending freeze". That's why I can't understand why people are up in arms about it. People heard "domestic discretionary spending freeze" and have assumed the worst.

I'll again say that the administration made a mistake in rolling this out this way. It's like they cherish political complications and a lack of control of their messaging. It would have made much more sense for this type of policy to be unveiled in the SOTU address or in a separate policy address, because the lack of details is confusing people and causing people to assume the worst, while also allowing critics to fill people's heads with the worst ideas about what this policy proposal means...

This is kinda what they did with healthcare -- leaked all this information out, allowing confusion to reign, and then they only tepidly (if at all) addressed the critiques. But once you've lost control of the message, it's almost impossible to regain it. Unfortunately, they still haven't learned the importance of sound message control.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Iggy Pop

January 26, 2010 1:42 PM

"Stalin was a Marxist." This is such a lame right-wing slogan. Was Robespierre a "democrat"? He said he was. Nobody thinks of him as a democrat. How about Bush? He said he was a "compasionate conservative." By your logic MSNBC he must be since he said he was.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Iggy Pop

It's just astounding that Marxist apologists are so rampant here.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

What do you have against Karl Marx? Did he steal your lunch money or something?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to wbgonne

See century, 20th. Rise of communism, Stalinist purges, Berlin Wall, etc, etc. Since when were Democrats supposed to be Communist-lite? I thought that was a right wing spin but some of the posters here are validating that...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Wow. Karl Marx caused all those horribles. Isn't that like saying Jesus Christ caused the crusades?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Iggy Pop

January 26, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

MSNBC-- my family lived under Stalin. And while they did, cheap anti-Marxists like you did nothing to help them other than give them some lip service. Oh yeah, I remember how Reagan asked America to light a candle to protest the crack-down on Solidarity in Poland. Did that make you feel all warm and fuzzyy in MSNBC. Did you feel like you were fighting Marxism and helping? I bet it did. So in conclusion, people like you throw slogans around, and pointing out that Marxism and Stalinism are two different things is a hopeless task.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Stalinism != Marxism

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:46 PM

So let me get this straight; defense spending accounts for 44% of the budget, and service on the debt another 10%, with the rest of the federal budget (i.e. health care, government operations, education, etc.) making up the final 45%. And we yet are going to make cuts from the small slices of the pie to the tune of 2-3% of the total budget over the next ten years to restore fiscal sanity. It's official folks; Reaganism has won.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to robertecrump

Yes, the banksters are still getting rich. We are still in two wars without end, still paying 100,000's of contractors. A 60 vote majority can't pass the time of day. Nobody has been prosecuted for the war crimes, wiretapping crimes, and political influence in the Justice Department crimes.

Ayup, that zombie Reagan the GOP dug up is still in charge it seems. (Funny Onion skit about the zombie). Nobody else seems to be.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tommyo

January 26, 2010 1:55 PM

Obama is a fucking nightmare.

A real Democratic leader needs to start an opposition to this fraud inside the party. There is nothing to lose. He has shit and shit and shit on the people who voted for him since he was elected.

God help us.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to tommyo

His approval ratings are stable. Only leftist losers hate him.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Ah ha ha. Tell me that come election time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Unfortunately, the Leftist Losers have taken over Massachusetts. And that is just the start.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

January 26, 2010 1:56 PM

Why don't you wait and see what the plan is before you get in a tizzy. I doubt Congress will even let it happen so instead of getting yourselves all crazy, wait and see what's happening.

A headline goes up and everyone panics. Calm down, take a deep breath. Breathe.......

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to lousgirl84

That's because everytime the Dems propose something the progressives want we know it will never materalize. On the flip, everytime they propose something that only a know-nothing Republican nihilists could like it gets fast tracked.

As The Dude said, "Ah fuck it man."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Sad, Lousgirl, that your defense of Obama has been reduced to hoping Congress rejects his initiatives.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

January 26, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to wbgonne

That is not my hope. I was making a statement because of experience with Congress in the past when presidents try to cut spending.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Because Obama is perfect! He is just so smart that you can understand what he's doing. He is operating on a whole. nother. level.

Besides, just the fact that he got elected president proves that he is the smartest person in the world.

I'm so infatuated with him that he could come into my house and strangle my kitty cat with his bare hands and I'd still love him.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

January 26, 2010 1:59 PM

With progressives jumping off a cliff everytime Obama does something they don't approve of, he simply can't count on their for their votes. Therefore he targets moderate republicans, centrists who voted for McCain. Every Mccain voter he can peel off is a two-fer as it's a minus for the GOP and plus for him.

If Obama knew he could count on progressive support he might be more daring to make progressive moves. However he can't because it's one big freak out after the next in progressiveland.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

No kidding, lefties have been jumping ship in droves ever since Rick Warren. Disgusting. Loyalty is a curse word to them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Loyalty is a two way street. And for those of you think for one second you can peel of "moderate Republicans," I say good luck in 2010 and beyond.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to robertecrump

Huh? Obama needs to be loyal to what helps Americans the most, need a debunked leftist ideology...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

So he should adopt the Right-Wing nuttery that nearly destroyed our country? Great idea. Not to mention, the liberal ideology has never been "debunked" b/c it's never been bunked.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Debunked leftist ideology? Oh, you must be referring to the life's work of Milton Friedman and the supply side theory that drove the greatest economy in the world into a ditch.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Totally. I mean, the "leftists" were in control of the government in....what...1938?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Freakouts do happen after progressives like myself and thousands of nameless others devoted the better part of two years getting someone elected, who in turn, spent the next year shafting them at every step. And if you believe the base of the Democratic party does not constitute the progressive bloc then stand back and watch the results next fall and in 2012.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to robertecrump

Oh I will. And it will be glorious to do it without commie whiners.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 26, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

I like playing with this troll but caveat emptor: MSNBCBrainDrain is here to sow discord among Democrats.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Commine whiners? Wow. It's refreshing to see an intellectually dishonest, self described "old fat man" on the internet. The world is in such short supply of those. Good day to you sir, the converstion was stimulating and refreshig. Let me know when you've seen enough of the University of Chicago school of economic thought.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Scott in PacNW

January 26, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Nonsense. Dems still support Obama way more than moderates or GOPers. See Gallup on this point.

By contrast, wasting 9 months of political capital in the Senate wooing moderate GOP votes on HCR was a 'pragmatic' strategy, but did it work? Not so much. Doing the same now with voters is folly.

Despite projections on Obama from all sides, he's really just a DLC Rockefeller Republican. The time for that stuff is past.

Our manufacturing economy was hollowed out & the banks defaulted thanks to failed 'conservative' economic policy. The national debt is sky high thanks to 30 years of 'borrow & spend' GOP fiscal policy.

Obama needs to say so, but I don't think he will because it's not his style -- or the view of advisors like Larry Summers. If Obama doesn't step up for the middle class against the entrenched financial lobby, IMO, it's game over.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:04 PM

I've been saying Obama is only fighting for the status quo for some time now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ru4862

January 26, 2010 2:06 PM

How can this president call for a spending freeze during a recession? It seems irresponsible and politics as usual. Are there any intelligent policy makers in the Obama WH?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AlphaLiberal

January 26, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to ru4862

"SEEMS" irresponsible? It is irresponsible.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to ru4862

Short answer - No.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AlphaLiberal

January 26, 2010 2:17 PM

Obama is endorsing Bush Republican economics. He is letting events push him around, rather than steering them. He has become captured by the Village.

Democrats are such idiots. We need a third way to engage politics without giving this miserably failed and gutless party another ounce of support.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal

Obama is doing exactly what is needed - to turn voters against any hope that either party is responsible or cares about the voters.

So far, he started with the right hating him and then moved to the left and independents.

At this rate, in two years, the majority of Americans will vote for a third party in a heartbeat.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to DA in LA

I can only hope. I know I'll be doing my part.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

Nader redux. Why would Obama EVER help you people after he saw how the left stabbed Gore in the back in 2000? Unbelievable..

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Gore didn't run as a liberal in 2000? He was a Clintonian Democrat just like Obama is now. Just because Gore has since improved doesn't mean he is constant.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

And you would still argue that we were better off with Bush or that it wouldn't have made a difference?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

How can I say we were better with Bush when I have no idea what Gore's presidency would have been like? That's like asking me if I prefer horses over unicorns. Gore didn't become president, buddy. Therefore, I can't answer your ludicrous hypothetical.

I can say that Gore was running as a candidate of the status quo so while some mistakes of the Bush presidency would not have been made (but other new mistakes undoubtedly would have) it would still have been "business as usual." Gore would not have rocked the boat that so desperately needs rocking.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Sweety, I didn't vote for Nader. I was a straight up Democrat until recently. I worked my ass off for Obama. I've never voted anyway but Democrat. I'm not a "leftist."

And I'm done with the party.

But you keep going with the labels and keep ignoring reality. It'll get you kids far.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Iggy Pop

January 26, 2010 2:25 PM

MSNBC . . . you remind me of the sheep in Animal Farm

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Iggy Pop

You'd think someone with an intimate knowledge of that book would be a little more wary of left ideology.

Look, the fact is Western Europe is crumbling under the welfare/socialist state. It's not a sustainable lifestyle into the 21st century and the US is never gonna go for it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Orwell was a leftist? Read "Why I Write" for details on his Democratic Socialism.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

But our "lifestyle" is?

I'm enjoying your nonsense considerably.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drjackanapes

January 26, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to DA in LA

Yes, it's some of the best relentless parroting of other people's fact-free nonsense as I've seen in quite a while. Karaoke nonsense, if you will. I wonder if he gets paid to write it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Evidence that Western Europe is crumbling, please. Their per capita GDP growth has been virtually the same as the US over the last 30 years.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

outside it's america

January 26, 2010 2:32 PM

A winning strategy for the dems:
1) Withhold judgment until you see the plan...then
2) Withhold judgment 'til you see how the other side reacts..then 3) Withhold judgment until you see how the voters react..then 4) withhold judgment until you are in the minority.
Most importantly make sure that you jettison all signs of the party's historic core values.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AnswerFrog

January 26, 2010 2:46 PM

I think you are both wrong:

* Obama is indeed taking his base for granted and not loudly, boldly pushing a Democratic agenda. Why he is doign his is beyond me -- who is going to volunteer, donate, knock on doors for him??? Backing off and pursuing weak-looking triangluating strategies is just so tonedeaf and inept. Whoever is advising him on this needs to go. The meta-politics of backing down and acquiescing to shrill GOP fearmongering is pathetic. The inability to HIT BACK and ATTACK THE GOP is absolutely maddening.

* The left flank is flaky and disloyal. Unlike Bush, who was given six years to screw things up before they cut and ran, the left flaked out almost right away. And this is a defeatist strategy as well -- the lack of loyal support for Dem leaders basically makes GOP attacks that much more effective because you are not being backed up by your side. There is a long time pattern of the left being self-defeating, cranky traitors who would rather posture and complain than actual help get things done. Basically, the left is fickle and always feels betrayed and quits, which is one big part of why the GOP seems to always win.

Both Obama and the left are partly to blame for this. Unfortunately, neither side seems to be able to learn from their mistakes. We get Obama doubling down on futile middle-of-the-road gimmicks, meanwhile the left cranks up the hate. (And some of yall have been hating from day one and that is a fact.)

Obama isn't evil. He's just being stupid. Instead of being cynical haters 24/7, we should be pressuring him for a progressive agenda. How about a letter signed by leading progressives demanding we use our huge congressional majorities for good? Instead, we get scorched earth nihilism that calls it quits when the going gets tough and things look bad.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

January 26, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

I agree.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Because Obama is THE BEST!!!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

January 26, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

There's also a long time history of the left not getting anything and taking the blame.

Maybe someone needs to take a look at that. Or, you could blame the reaction instead of the action.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

I fully agree with point #1.

As for point #2, after you are promised an action, say X, if Obama is elected, you work like the devil because you believe in X. Obama is miraculously elected after trumpeting his support for X. Then once elected, he decides that X is too controversial, and drops it. Anyone who complains is a "hater".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AnswerFrog

January 26, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to billpaustin

They are haters. And I don't expect anyone to agree -- heck, that would disprove my thesis that the left NEVER LEARNS.

Conservatives face disappointment too. Bush was elected because of things like his abortion views, yet Roe v. Wade is still law.

It is simply a fact, an incontrovertible one, that Bush was given YEARS before the right stopped backing him, while Obama got half a year, if that.

Was "No Child Left Behind" really what the conservatives wanted out of Bush???? Yet I heard no attacks on him making that his big first priority. The Right got tons of big government spending that they hate, and they put up with it. Perhaps this is why 2002 was nothing like 2010.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

January 26, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

Conservatives got their tax breaks. Bush stacked the Supreme Court as good as he could - unless you expected him to assasinate Stevens to make room for another appointment - and he tried to kill Social Security. Excuse, what didn't the conservatives get from Bush?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

whitesauce

January 26, 2010 3:11 PM

Focusing on the posted story, I would ask one question: Why is the Administration so out of line with CAP. You would think that CAP was most aligned with Obama's politics. Am I wrong?

If the Dems can't get deliver a consistent message, how can the party hope to succeed with its agenda. I don't agree with some of the DLC-style policies, but I would hope whatever it is the Dems wish to accomplish, they would be able to execute it well.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lamonth

January 26, 2010 4:06 PM

i think an across the board spending freeze is a good idea. idea. during this past economic downturn spending has gotten out of control and to be able to get the spending back under control and to direct dollars to the correct area you need to stop everything and restart spending where you choose the priorities.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lestatdelc

January 26, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to lamonth

What alternate world did that occur? Because her eon planet earth (specifically in the USA) we never cut budgets to get out of recessions/depressions. We got out of the Great Depression with the largest public spending program in human history (aka World War II) and even in recent times, we got out of Reagan's disastrous economics by raising taxes (and pappy Bush breaking his "read my lips" pledge) followed by the first Clinton budget which also raised taxes which lead to the biggest and longest sustained growth in the economy in our history.

IN short, you are talking through your hat and have the history 100% wrong.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hoppycalif2

January 26, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to lamonth

You really need to look at the federal budget again. If spending is out of control it is so because of the Iraq/Afghanistan adventures, not because of any domestic program. We don't spend enough on domestic programs that if we just eliminated them it would affect the budget much. Entitlements, War and Interest payments are what we over spend on. And, the first and last are untouchable, so that leaves war, something Obama was supposedly against.

Yes, we did spend a lot on stimulus last year, but most of that was in the form of loans to the banks, which have mostly been paid back. The rest was pure stimulus, without which we very likely would be in even worse economic straits than we now are. And, still more stimulus spending is called for, but apparently rescuing ordinary citizens from economic distress is not on the table - the table is still full from rescuing the gambling bankers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex Carson

January 26, 2010 11:39 PM in reply to hoppycalif2

So he in fact is not endorsing a cap, according to your definition? Why use the term then?

McCain also wanted to increase spending in some areas, decrease it in others, so regardless of the absolute definition of "spending cap" Obama and McCain's positions aren't too different. Did McCain use the term "spending freeze," maybe, but if you ever took a gander at his website he didn't advocate a spending freeze in the sense of "whatever was budgeted last year shall be budgeted for that exact same item next year."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex Carson

January 26, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to hoppycalif2

Woops, ignore that first post, browser got confused.

Anyway, the 2008 appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan was 190 Billion. Global war on terror (regular budget item) was 150 Billion. A hell of a lot of money sure, but the two of them together are less than Medicare by itself.

Oh yes, you consider programs like Medicare to either not be domestic, or not be programs, so money spent on those don't count. That allows you to say that we spend more on the wars than "any domestic program." Just curious, which part does not apply to Medicare - "program" or "domestic"?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hoppycalif2

January 27, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Alex Carson

Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are "entitlements" and the spending on them is not decided by the government on a year to year basis, but is determined by whatever the last bill on the subject dictates. They are not subject to whimsical budget adjustments year by year.

Discretionary spending is for things that Congress appropriates money for every year. No Child Left Behind would be such a program.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

socraticgadfly

January 26, 2010 6:22 PM

How is this reaction by Linden "muted"?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Economides

January 26, 2010 9:30 PM in reply to socraticgadfly

I think the person who wrote this story is disappointed that Linden didn't excoriate Obama's plan. Of course he wasn't going to since that was not what he was talking about and although I am not sure he had all the details yet, it;s clear Obama's plan is anything but the kind of brain -dead "spending freeze" of the kind McCain was advocating.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cat

January 27, 2010 5:39 AM

No one can win the Pres without Independents. Obama has lost most of his & they always say that spending and deficits are a problem for them. Since over 50% of them voted for him, they should get some bones occasionally. As usual, liberals are over-reacting & thinks this is for Repugs when it is Indys.