What Obama Needs to Say Tonight

I’ll call BS. He needs to drop the bipartisan BS and insist that the constitution didn’t call for 60 votes and that the Senate drop the corruption of the fillibuster.

I’ll call BS. He needs to drop the bipartisan BS and insist that the constitution didn’t call for 60 votes and that the Senate drop the corruption of the fillibuster.

um, it’s pretty clear already there’s going to be no second stimulus….so no big jobs program….He’s going to focus on “expanding the child care tax credit” and another fiddling with tax provisions for tuition interest costs, yawn, it’s all very Dick Morris Clinton after 1994….

IOW the GOP won, they beat him and now he is agreeing to submit.

Funny thing — even alt hip media outlet dudes are still imagining he’s got some fight left in him.

Pass the kool aid….

um, it’s pretty clear already there’s going to be no second stimulus….so no big jobs program….He’s going to focus on “expanding the child care tax credit” and another fiddling with tax provisions for tuition interest costs, yawn, it’s all very Dick Morris Clinton after 1994….

IOW the GOP won, they beat him and now he is agreeing to submit.

Funny thing — even alt hip media outlet dudes are still imagining he’s got some fight left in him.

Pass the kool aid….

Why are people angry?

They voted for someone who told them he had an answer, who would hit the ground running, who would be ‘like a scalpel’, who would do ‘what works’, who would not need ‘on the job training’.

Well…what did you get?

And don’t blame me….I voted for McCain.

Why are people angry?

They voted for someone who told them he had an answer, who would hit the ground running, who would be ‘like a scalpel’, who would do ‘what works’, who would not need ‘on the job training’.

Well…what did you get?

And don’t blame me….I voted for McCain.

Obama Nerd -

Your analysis is so uninformed and amatuerish, I have to believe that 2008 was the first time you voted.

First off, when voters are angry, they want a hell of a lot more than just to be “validated.” Throw that PC nonsense out the window and pay attention. People are angry because the president promised change and real reform, but instead, he’s guaranteed more billion dollar giveaways to the corporations.

Obama lied last year when he claimed he wanted a health care bill that included a strong public option to promote competition with the insurance industry. In reality, he had his consigliere, Rahm Emanuel, making backroom deals with PhRMA lobbyist Billy Tauzin — whereby the White House promised there would be no re-importation of drugs from Canada, at cheaper prices — and a side deal with the insurance industry, that promised no price controls whatsoever on what insurance companies can charge for junk insurance. These actions do not exactly inspire confidence in the voters.

Tha bank bailouts (begun by Bush, sanctioned by Obama) were awarded with no built-in accountability measures. So, the banks have been rescued, but they haven’t started the credit flowing again to their customers — which was the point of the program. The whole exercise was a wash, having virtually no effect on the economy.

MA voters already have a health insurance program that is similar to the one Obama’s now pushing and still, roughly 20% of MA residents can’t afford coverage. Health care costs in the state have not stabilized — they have risen. And the state lost 40,000 jobs in the last two months alone.

Add to that the terrible campaign run by Coakley, the infighting among the MA Dem party (including Boston Mayor Menino’s antipathy in endorsing Coakley), and the ineptitude of the DCCC and the DNC — which lifted nary a finger to guide her campaign — and you have the perfect recipe for an election disaster.

And you surmise that MA voters just wanted to be “listened to”???

The incremental programs Obama is planning to introduce during the SOTU are not going to win him any friends. What he needs to do is introduce a bold jobs creation plan, putting enough money behind it to make it effective. Instead, he’s going to cut everything but military spending, pay lip service to the “deficits=BAD” crowd, while throwing in a little chump change to help parents pay for day care. (Whoopee.) His pathological need to seek bi-partisanship with intransigent Republicans, kick the liberal base to the curb, and frame it all in the guise of “reform” will convince no one that anything resembling CHANGE is on the horizon.

Have fun knocking back your bottle of champagne. Emanuel and Axelrod have instructed him to veer even further to the right, and he will comply because… that’s who he really is.

If I wanted a Republican president, I would have voted for one.

Obama Nerd -

Your analysis is so uninformed and amatuerish, I have to believe that 2008 was the first time you voted.

First off, when voters are angry, they want a hell of a lot more than just to be “validated.” Throw that PC nonsense out the window and pay attention. People are angry because the president promised change and real reform, but instead, he’s guaranteed more billion dollar giveaways to the corporations.

Obama lied last year when he claimed he wanted a health care bill that included a strong public option to promote competition with the insurance industry. In reality, he had his consigliere, Rahm Emanuel, making backroom deals with PhRMA lobbyist Billy Tauzin — whereby the White House promised there would be no re-importation of drugs from Canada, at cheaper prices — and a side deal with the insurance industry, that promised no price controls whatsoever on what insurance companies can charge for junk insurance. These actions do not exactly inspire confidence in the voters.

Tha bank bailouts (begun by Bush, sanctioned by Obama) were awarded with no built-in accountability measures. So, the banks have been rescued, but they haven’t started the credit flowing again to their customers — which was the point of the program. The whole exercise was a wash, having virtually no effect on the economy.

MA voters already have a health insurance program that is similar to the one Obama’s now pushing and still, roughly 20% of MA residents can’t afford coverage. Health care costs in the state have not stabilized — they have risen. And the state lost 40,000 jobs in the last two months alone.

Add to that the terrible campaign run by Coakley, the infighting among the MA Dem party (including Boston Mayor Menino’s antipathy in endorsing Coakley), and the ineptitude of the DCCC and the DNC — which lifted nary a finger to guide her campaign — and you have the perfect recipe for an election disaster.

And you surmise that MA voters just wanted to be “listened to”???

The incremental programs Obama is planning to introduce during the SOTU are not going to win him any friends. What he needs to do is introduce a bold jobs creation plan, putting enough money behind it to make it effective. Instead, he’s going to cut everything but military spending, pay lip service to the “deficits=BAD” crowd, while throwing in a little chump change to help parents pay for day care. (Whoopee.) His pathological need to seek bi-partisanship with intransigent Republicans, kick the liberal base to the curb, and frame it all in the guise of “reform” will convince no one that anything resembling CHANGE is on the horizon.

Have fun knocking back your bottle of champagne. Emanuel and Axelrod have instructed him to veer even further to the right, and he will comply because… that’s who he really is.

If I wanted a Republican president, I would have voted for one.

Having watched the Obama/Democratic strategy with the stimulus, health care bill, and the Afghanistan war, I see a common problem that runs through all three. In order to govern effectively, the Democratic leadership needs to earn the support of moderates and independents. They understand that much. What they don’t understand is what moderates and independents want to see.

It is a common fallacy that moderates and independents want to see centrist policies. The reality is that they want to see good policies, and are willing to accept liberal, centrist, or conservative policies as long as those policies can be demonstrated to be effective. The health care bill is widely perceived to be a mess, full of provisions that don’t make sense and that represent wheeling and dealing. The Afghanistan policy doesn’t make much sense either; the common sense is that the 2011 drawdown date was chosen as the latest date that would be politically acceptable, not chosen due to real strategic concerns. And the stimulus programs appear to have been designed without much focus. They don’t seem to be connected in any way with the other major Democratic priorities.

Having watched the Obama/Democratic strategy with the stimulus, health care bill, and the Afghanistan war, I see a common problem that runs through all three. In order to govern effectively, the Democratic leadership needs to earn the support of moderates and independents. They understand that much. What they don’t understand is what moderates and independents want to see.

It is a common fallacy that moderates and independents want to see centrist policies. The reality is that they want to see good policies, and are willing to accept liberal, centrist, or conservative policies as long as those policies can be demonstrated to be effective. The health care bill is widely perceived to be a mess, full of provisions that don’t make sense and that represent wheeling and dealing. The Afghanistan policy doesn’t make much sense either; the common sense is that the 2011 drawdown date was chosen as the latest date that would be politically acceptable, not chosen due to real strategic concerns. And the stimulus programs appear to have been designed without much focus. They don’t seem to be connected in any way with the other major Democratic priorities.

Plutocracy – its here. WAKE UP if you’re still not hip to that FACT.

Plutocracy – its here. WAKE UP if you’re still not hip to that FACT.

“And when I say job creation, I mean, figure out a massive public works project that puts people to work, like yesterday”

Wrong. You can’t spend your way out of a debt problem. IF we were a nation of savers and IF we weren’t running a 1.3 trillion deficit in this year, one could argue that public spending could prime the pump for later private spending. In our current position, the added economic activity isn’t enough to pay the debt service on the money – our tax dollars- that you think should be spent on stimulus. Look to Japan to see what happens when a society refuses to allow debt to default and instead props up zombie banks and relies on government spending – two lost decades.

What we need is some regulation of our financial system, transparency in our government, campaign finance reforms (no thanks to the SCOTUS!), and more trust that our nation is stable and solvent in the long-term. In short, we need to maintain the US as an open, accountable, just society, and growth will take care of itself over the longer-term. Putting short-term pumping of GDP and equity markets ahead of our long-term interest has to stop!

“And when I say job creation, I mean, figure out a massive public works project that puts people to work, like yesterday”

Wrong. You can’t spend your way out of a debt problem. IF we were a nation of savers and IF we weren’t running a 1.3 trillion deficit in this year, one could argue that public spending could prime the pump for later private spending. In our current position, the added economic activity isn’t enough to pay the debt service on the money – our tax dollars- that you think should be spent on stimulus. Look to Japan to see what happens when a society refuses to allow debt to default and instead props up zombie banks and relies on government spending – two lost decades.

What we need is some regulation of our financial system, transparency in our government, campaign finance reforms (no thanks to the SCOTUS!), and more trust that our nation is stable and solvent in the long-term. In short, we need to maintain the US as an open, accountable, just society, and growth will take care of itself over the longer-term. Putting short-term pumping of GDP and equity markets ahead of our long-term interest has to stop!

Interesting analysis.

I myself have been arguing that a New Deal 2010 update is the answer-well partially-to jobs creation.

But even with massive public works projects, one could argue that that would be temporary & not long term so maybe in 6 months or a year that would put us back at square one.

I think of all of the census folks at work right now and am happy they have temporary work but also realize it will eventually stop and the same folks will be back looking for work.

Of course despite all of that, any temporary job provided by the government is a good thing and as you said, should have happened yesterday.

I’m hoping Obama can come with short and long term solutions rooted in reality, pragmatic, & that start as soon as possible.

Interesting analysis.

I myself have been arguing that a New Deal 2010 update is the answer-well partially-to jobs creation.

But even with massive public works projects, one could argue that that would be temporary & not long term so maybe in 6 months or a year that would put us back at square one.

I think of all of the census folks at work right now and am happy they have temporary work but also realize it will eventually stop and the same folks will be back looking for work.

Of course despite all of that, any temporary job provided by the government is a good thing and as you said, should have happened yesterday.

I’m hoping Obama can come with short and long term solutions rooted in reality, pragmatic, & that start as soon as possible.

I think people are confused with my article. That’s ok…sometimes beautiful art needs a few looks to understand its brilliance. I am not advocating a strategy to reduce unemployment or turn the economy around or reduce the debt limit. I am saying what Obama needs to say to turn the midterm elections around. And yes, it’s just as easy as saying “I understand your anger and frustration and here’s what I am going to do about it.” Obama knows this on a certain level and that’s why he said as much after Coakley’s loss. Now he needs to follow it up with something bold, not modest proposals. And that bold initiative needs to be immediate and directly impact people’s lives. Like I said, it’s a dubious task and we’ll see if he pulls off a successful reset tonight.

I think people are confused with my article. That’s ok…sometimes beautiful art needs a few looks to understand its brilliance. I am not advocating a strategy to reduce unemployment or turn the economy around or reduce the debt limit. I am saying what Obama needs to say to turn the midterm elections around. And yes, it’s just as easy as saying “I understand your anger and frustration and here’s what I am going to do about it.” Obama knows this on a certain level and that’s why he said as much after Coakley’s loss. Now he needs to follow it up with something bold, not modest proposals. And that bold initiative needs to be immediate and directly impact people’s lives. Like I said, it’s a dubious task and we’ll see if he pulls off a successful reset tonight.

I agree

I agree

Damn iPhones. Hit submit on accident. I agree with obamanerd but more definitively with Krugman. I just wish Obamanerd would have been as funny as his dominant party post. I barely giggled at all in this post. Be consistently dirty and funny!

Damn iPhones. Hit submit on accident. I agree with obamanerd but more definitively with Krugman. I just wish Obamanerd would have been as funny as his dominant party post. I barely giggled at all in this post. Be consistently dirty and funny!

Obamanerd says “I am not advocating a strategy to reduce unemployment or turn the economy around or reduce the debt limit. I am saying what Obama needs to say to turn the midterm elections around.”

So, you are not supporting a “massive public program” as a strategy to reduce unemployment or do any economic good, but instead embracing it’s political benefits. Is that right? Are you advising the President to put his political interests in front of the long-term economic health of this county? I doubt you are, but you are being very sloppy with the logic. Something that is truly “bold” has to take into consideration long-term consequences of its action, or else its not bold, its just robbing Peter (tomorrow’s taxpayers) to pay Paul (today’s voters)

Obamanerd says “I am not advocating a strategy to reduce unemployment or turn the economy around or reduce the debt limit. I am saying what Obama needs to say to turn the midterm elections around.”

So, you are not supporting a “massive public program” as a strategy to reduce unemployment or do any economic good, but instead embracing it’s political benefits. Is that right? Are you advising the President to put his political interests in front of the long-term economic health of this county? I doubt you are, but you are being very sloppy with the logic. Something that is truly “bold” has to take into consideration long-term consequences of its action, or else its not bold, its just robbing Peter (tomorrow’s taxpayers) to pay Paul (today’s voters)

i voila – that’s politics, friend. Not everything the majority party does is altruistic. There’s a good deal of “what do we need to do to keep the party in power.”

That said, I think there are long term benefits to advocating a massive public works project vis a vis the New Deal. I think it can provide public good (people working is a good thing) and has political benefits. I think staying the course and pushing through health care in this current strategy is not.

i voila – that’s politics, friend. Not everything the majority party does is altruistic. There’s a good deal of “what do we need to do to keep the party in power.”

That said, I think there are long term benefits to advocating a massive public works project vis a vis the New Deal. I think it can provide public good (people working is a good thing) and has political benefits. I think staying the course and pushing through health care in this current strategy is not.

What an awful possibility that Obama will omit climate change from his State of the Union address on Wednesday! Copenhagen was a failure, and the President needs to encourage the congressional Climate Change Bill and reenergize Americans to reduce emissions and improve efficiency.

Interested in clean energy, energy efficiency, or green tech? Go to http://www.greencollareconomy.com for sustainability white papers and the largest b2b green directory on the web.

What an awful possibility that Obama will omit climate change from his State of the Union address on Wednesday! Copenhagen was a failure, and the President needs to encourage the congressional Climate Change Bill and reenergize Americans to reduce emissions and improve efficiency.

Interested in clean energy, energy efficiency, or green tech? Go to http://www.greencollareconomy.com for sustainability white papers and the largest b2b green directory on the web.

Got it. Better to keep power than do the right thing. You must have studied under Frank Chopp. …With respect to the economy, I’m contending that that big public works program would neither be effective nor bold. Throwing more gov’t money out the door…after stimulus I (bush), banker bailout, simulus II, Part 1 and the balance of TARP stimulus that is being reappropriated….it not bold. Being bold would be telling people to save money, tell Wall Street to take a hike and quit propping up asset/equity prices via Fed purchase program, re-regulate the financial system ala Glass Steagal, and saying that we cannot spend our way out of this recession. That, my friend, would be bold.

Got it. Better to keep power than do the right thing. You must have studied under Frank Chopp. …With respect to the economy, I’m contending that that big public works program would neither be effective nor bold. Throwing more gov’t money out the door…after stimulus I (bush), banker bailout, simulus II, Part 1 and the balance of TARP stimulus that is being reappropriated….it not bold. Being bold would be telling people to save money, tell Wall Street to take a hike and quit propping up asset/equity prices via Fed purchase program, re-regulate the financial system ala Glass Steagal, and saying that we cannot spend our way out of this recession. That, my friend, would be bold.

You can’t do the right thing if you don’t have the power. I agree w/obamanerd on this. Like the jobs bill the state house passed, a big jobs bill is a win/win.

You can’t do the right thing if you don’t have the power. I agree w/obamanerd on this. Like the jobs bill the state house passed, a big jobs bill is a win/win.

ObamaNerd, premanent jobs would be better. Massive public works project will most likely lead to a false sense of stability and eventual further unemployment. Not to mention the question: from where does the $$ come?

If you do however want a public works project – here it is: fix the US infrastructure; everyone knows it is failing – including our enemies – so it has to be fixed eventually.

ObamaNerd, premanent jobs would be better. Massive public works project will most likely lead to a false sense of stability and eventual further unemployment. Not to mention the question: from where does the $$ come?

If you do however want a public works project – here it is: fix the US infrastructure; everyone knows it is failing – including our enemies – so it has to be fixed eventually.

Roger – totally agree.

Roger – totally agree.