absolutely nothing. Today's world of politics seldom renders any form of bipartisanship.
And absolutely nothing also describes what President Obama did.
Well, let me correct that. He did do something. Something that he has made a habit of doing in the past three years.
He immediately decided to blame the failings of the 12-member -- split-down-the-middle committee -- on the Republicans.
Now, I am not defending the Republicans, nor am I chastising only the Democrats.
But the President wasted little time in pointing his finger at others. He has done this ever since he took office in January 2009.
Presidents are supposed to be leaders. They are expected to make decisions and/or foster the decision-making process of others in leadership roles. They are expected to be tough, strong and confident.
They are not expected to constantly blame others and retreat.
I heard a reporter yesterday make a comment or two about former President Harry Truman. Obviously, President Obama does not wish to follow in Truman's path.
Because, in the 2011 White House, the "Buck" does not stop here!!!
Of all the reasons why President Obama should NOT be re-elected, this is the top one.
He is not a leader. He is a finger-pointer. He is an apologist. He is not suited to be President of the United States.
Let me get my selfish reason out of the way. I like our government's incompetence. Hell, I even like Europe's incompetence. As a result, we have volatility in the market. This is the perfect environment for a trader.
Now to the other reason why it failed. We are not at the precipice. Look at the 10 year bond. We can borrow money at extremely cheap levels. Now look at Greece, Italy, Spain, and even France at their 10 year bonds. They are close to 7%. The U.S. is still the best house in the global neighborhood. Of course the neighborhood is South Central LA. The gun is not yet pointed at our heads.
Think about it, we were talking about $120B in yearly cuts. That is 3% of the total Federal budget. We have a team of idiots that can't cut 3%. And that 3% is based on a future budget baseline.
The risk/reward is not there for politicians to act and possibly risk not getting elected. $120B a year is chump change. There were a couple of middle of the road politicians on the committee from both sides, but they are getting drowned out by the ideology of extremists from both parties.
Plus Obama doesn't add any value to the process. He is supposed to lead, and he is spending his time campaigning.
-- Modified on 11/22/2011 3:03:17 PM
I'm not, but I predicted it from the beginning. The Super Committee was always a sham, designed to fail. The automatic cuts are always what we were going to be left with. That's a Republican win because there are no tax increases then, just cuts. The can has been kicked down the road for another year, and push will come to shove at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire. Then the Dems will have the upper hand.
As for interest rates, our low rates are a temporary thing and exist only because Europe is in worse shape than we are. If they ever get their act together (meaning credible austerity, which is a stretch for them), and we have not fixed our financial house, Euro rates will drop and ours will spike. The next year will be interesting.,
First you say there are no tax increases coming then you acknowledge we are in store for what will be a huge tax increase in a year. The Democrats were offered the Toomey plan that went against Norquist and would have increased total tax revenues through tax reform but of course was rejected. At least you and a few other Democrats are candidly acknowledging that this was a win for Democrats as it puts them in the driver’s seat for further negotiations. The Republicans also knew this would be the result but were willing to say no to Obama’s version of tax increases. You and other Dems say the Repubs opposed the “compromise” that included a tax increase in order to insure the economy suffers. Others say it was based on honest principle.
Even though both sides are primarily driven by ideology, right or wrong, either way, you and a few other Dems have now voiced the correct assessment that the Dems had the most to gain from the Congressional failure at this juncture.
Given this knowledge of how power would shift to the left (and now Obama can push full steam ahead with his campaign against the “obstructionists”), which side had the stronger motivation to torpedo this super committee?
but I don't think I was trying to "have it both ways." But you're making some false assumptions about what I expect. Honestly, I don't quite know what to expect. Nobody wants the tax cuts rescinded for the middle class. The Dems just want the cuts rescinded for the top bracket. By compromising on this the Reps could have preserved the cuts for all the lower brackets, but both sides feel they'll do better in the end by kicking the can to 2013, so they're both equally guilty of not having the balls to solve the problem now. The Toomey plan was chump change and I doubt the Reps ever thought the Dems would have accepted it. And keep in mind the Reps were a big part of the deal that created the Super Committee. I'm quite sure both sides knew it was doomed to failure. I'm surprised the markets didn't see the obvious and were surprised when negotiatons collapsed. I don't necessarily think the Dems had the most to gain from this failure. But I do know who had the most to lose: ordinary Americans. I'm tired of both parties playing brinksmanship games. I am seriously thinking of voting against every candidate I've ever voted for in 2012.
listening and watching all this incompetent shit going on in Washington, or being asked on Thursday during Thanksgiving dinner by my two progressive sisters my thoughts on OWS. The only difference is I can't beat the shit out of any of the Super Committee members. Get ready to see me on a future "Cops" episode.
-- Modified on 11/22/2011 8:26:02 PM
You are totally behind the OWS, and please pass the latkes. Try not to choke when you say this. Have a wonderful holiday.
Should I say "please pass the latkes", after she introduces me to her new boyfriend? "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", and it ain't Sidney Poitier. This Thanksgiving should be a lot of laughs.
"...the Dems will have the upper hand."
"I don't necessarily think the Dems had the most to gain from this failure."
Which is it?
BTW, my first claim of "having it both ways" had nothing to do with my perception of your expectations. It was based quite simply on what you said about "there will be no tax increases" vs. "there will be tax increases."
And yes, incumbents of all colors (red and blue) should be afraid.