Too depressing for words

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 · 15 Comments »

National Schadenfreude Day Week now being over, the nation is rudely jolted back into the reality that it has just reelected the most Republican president since the last Republican president:

Leaked deal memo for last year’s Grand Bargain: “Obama willing to go quite far”. The money quote:

“This is a confidential document, last offer the president — the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it’s long and it’s tedious and it’s got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, “We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses.” So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far.”

And apparently they’re still willing to go that far.

Is this what the nation just voted for? Nope. Is this what Obama is going to try to do anyway? Yep.

Filed under: Open Thread · Tags:

15 Responses to “Too depressing for words”

  1. Dandelion says:

    It is in fact what the nation voted for. Obama was always clear about his intent. And the nation voted for him.

  2. quixote says:

    And then, a complete surprise at least to me: a push to gut the independence of independent regulatory agencies, nownownow right quick, while there are still a few extra Repubs to make it easier to pass.

    And no pushback from Dems in Congress, of course. As there won’t be for anything else, Grand “Bargains,” Trans-Pacific Partnerships (aka NAFTA for the whole world), etc., etc., etc.

    It’s going to be a fun four years. Wheee?

  3. Allison says:

    There wasn’t much choice, was there? It was a rigged election just as they all have been with rules that bar third party participation and a compliant media unwilling to tell truth to power.

  4. Violet Socks says:

    Obama was always clear about his intent. And the nation voted for him.

    I think the gap between Obama’s intentions and general awareness of those intentions is large. After all, slightly less than half the country thinks he’s a Marxist.

    I am positive that the vast majority of people who voted Democrat last week were voting for the continuation of the New Deal and the rest of the 20th century gains in American life. I am positive that they were voting AGAINST the Republican promise to repeal those gains.

    It’s really an impossible situation. If the country had gone Republican, then the GOP would have taken that as a mandate to implement the Ryan budget. They were already telegraphing that.

    So the country voted AGAINST them. And yet here we are, with Obama about to go full Republican on us.

  5. julia says:

    Hey everyone,

    What is this about Obama replacing Hillary Clinton?

  6. Val says:

    When people keep voting for the same two parties, nothing changes.

  7. quixote says:

    Yeah. Both sides were atrocious this time around. The least damage depends on which bet was right: hope that Romney could accomplish less with whatever minimal pushback the Democrats gave him, or hope to hell Obama wouldn’t do his worst.

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s only real ambition has always been to be a Life Member of the Aristocrats Club (you know, the one Jamie Dimon effortlessly belongs to). So the only hold on him is to make him look like a loser. Aristocrats sniff at losers and don’t invite them to the cool parties.

    Which, ironically, means that progressives should join with the delusionals to block his agenda unless he meets basic criteria like improving social insurance and getting the wealthy to pay their fair share for a functioning society.

    Something tells me the gods on Olympus are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off.

  8. quixote says:

    Hillary is resigning at the end of the first term. I believe that was always her stated plan. So, it’s “replacing” only in the literal sense, not in the firing sense.

  9. dakinikat says:

    I don’t think that’s Obama’s starting point any more. He’s spent the last week saying he’s not going to give on those things this time out including this leak to WAPO on his 2013 budget priorities. He’s not selling out either medicare or Social security at all. He’s also holding firm on tax increases for the wealthy.

  10. Violet Socks says:

    I hope you’re right, dakinikat.

  11. Branjor says:

    If that’s not Obama’s starting point “any more”, why was it ever his starting point? Inquiring minds want to know. If he wanted to reach across the aisle and be bipartisan and actually thought the republicans would play ball with him, he was less in touch with reality than I was at the time. I never thought that would happen. If he is committed to preserving social security, how could he have ever had the Simpson-Bowles committee?

  12. Branjor says:

    Violet, I just made a comment which seems to have disappeared into spam.

  13. Violet Socks says:

    Thanks, Branjor. I just fished it out of the slime pond.

  14. Adrienne in CA says:

    I hope Obama’s latest press conference is sincere. But I’m worried that it’s just to passify us long enough for the the wall-to-wall “Fiscal Cliff” propaganda can do its work.

    Is anyone besides Paul Krugman refusing to repeat that false frame?

  15. JeanLouise says:

    Obama praised the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission in his convention speech and in one of the debates. Axelrod, when asked about cuts to Social Security on Morning Joe, before the election, refused to answer, making some snippy comment about it being the business of those who are elected. That strikes me as very telling. If Obama were going to take Social Security, which is not in trouble, off the table, Axelrod would have said so.

    Anyone who thinks that Obama isn’t going to sell out Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is just not listening to what Obama has actually said on those subjects.