Obama administration warns the left: You will not like our budget

[kpete]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by rug (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Obama administration warns the left: You will not like our budget
By Alexander Bolton - 01/17/12 05:30 AM ET

Top White House officials are warning liberal and labor leaders to brace themselves for President Obama’s budget proposal.

Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sought in meetings last week to lift the left’s gloom about Washington’s crackdown on spending by promising that the president this year will focus on job creation rather than deficit cutting.


Obama staffers sought to present their budget plan as a glass half full. According to sources familiar with the briefings, they promised that the president will focus on jobs and the economy, instead of deficit-cutting, which dominated last year’s debate on Capitol Hill.

Obama has signaled in recent weeks that he plans to run a populist reelection campaign. He will need to keep liberal activist and labor groups — important parts of the Democratic base — energized for his strategy to work.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204435-obama-warns-left-you-will-not-like-my-budget

[BlueCaliDem]

1. The Hill...always a neutral beltway rag

when it comes to Democrats, in particular, President Obama.

[brooklynite]

37. So, you're saying that Liberals WILL like the President's budget?

However you feel about the politics of THE HILL, I don't see what your objection is in this case.

[dipsydoodle]

2. But if its like some other promises

then the left will like the budget. Perverse really isn't it.

off topic : mentioned because French TV seem to have been discussing the promise when he took office to close Guantanamo within a year most of the day now.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. And again, this is a congressional action that the Republicans blocked!

The French should know better.

[zipplewrath]

3. Kinda lame

"In his first three years, Obama had a free hand to suggest spending levels for government programs in his annual budget blueprint. But that is not the case this year because the administration is constrained by the budget deal reached in August to raise the debt limit."

I understand what he is saying, but he is "constrained" by a deal he cut himself. This wasn't imposed upon him. If he had raised the debt limit when he controlled congress (as many suggested that he do) he wouldn't be constrained. He's constrained by a deal he cut himself.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. Pelosi and Reid's fault. They readily admit that they should have increased the debt limit

prior to the Repukes taking over.

ETA: The president doesn't "CONTROL" Congress.

[yurbud]

14. Democratic presidents don't ''control'' congress. Republican presidents can almost ignore it at

will or at least expect a rubber stamp--even when Dems take over both chambers.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. I think you meant to reply to Zipplerwrath.

[zipplewrath]

36. Who's the leader of the party?

I'm curious, considering the Pelosi had to ram through the Senate Health Insurance Reform Act, and Baccus wrote the Senate version, exactly who leads the party right now?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. Obama is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, but

the bottom line is that there are THREE separate branches of government. The president who represents the Executive Branch, *CANNOT* act alone.

Basic Civics 101!

[zipplewrath]

70. Controls both houses

So when the democrats control both houses of congress and the white house, there should be no particular expectations for the "defacto" leader of the party to accomplish anything.

[Doctor_J]

62. The article quotes the WH as saying "Libs won't like OUR budget"

So the budget that the president is going to propose is the one that throws us under the bus. Not the one tha McTurtle will vote for.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. I think he's preempting the Republicans who are going to do much

much WORSE!!!

[patrice]

10. Control? Here are the stats:

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/myth-of-progressive-majority/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. I wish that I could bookmark this chart. It needs to be sticked to the top of this forum.

Thank you so very much!

[patrice]

23. Very insightful work. I remember a few DU -ers in Nov. '08 saying, TTE

that they were pleased that BO won, but the rest of it wasn't enough to do what needed to be done. Have not seen the substance of that assessment until someone posted this report on FaceBook.

[zipplewrath]

34. So they didn't have the votes for the debt ceiling

So you are tryng to make the case that there wasn't the support to increase the debt ceiling when the democrats controlled both houses of congress?

[patrice]

43. I think it's really more about how it is sooooooooo easy to hold this or that hostage

to other stuff.

Some things, like the debt ceiling, probably do USUALLY get treated like an entire separate thing, but with distributions illustrated in this report it's not hard to see how that can always change instantly, especially with a bunch of ignorant insane possibly treasonous TP -ers in the House threatening both chambers.

[patrice]

60. BTW, perhaps I mistake your meaning: the debt ceiling battle was this last Congress, when Dems

were NOT "in control" of both chambers, so . . . ?

[zipplewrath]

71. Perhaps you only started paying attention

They knew in the first two years, when the democrats controlled both houses of congress, that he debt ceiling would have to be raised. They especially knew when in November of 2010, the LOST control of both houses and would have only until the end of the year to raise the limit. "They" chose to wait until they had to fight it out with the GOP controlled house to try to do anything. The end result is the debt deal Obama negotiated and now is discussing as something forced upon him.

[The Wielding Truth]

56. Repub's stranle hold..."always need 60 votes to pass anything" Most important to remember.

"And because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear from the start that he intended to have his caucus use the filibuster on every piece of legislation, and vote as a bloc, forcing Democrats to always need 60 votes to pass anything, those numbers really matter."

[patrice]

59. "those numbers really matter" which is WHY there's such a concerted effort to blame the entire

situation on the President, i.e. to PROTECT CONGRESS.

[Renew Deal]

4. This could be just spin to make it look like they're being hard on their own side

It is an election year after all.

[DocMac]

5. I won't know how I feel about this

until George Clooney replies to my email.

[RobinA]

11. I Know How I Feel

Warn away, Repubs in Dem clothing. I gave up on you completely and absolutely when you signed indefinite detention. You are dead to me now.

[RandomKoolzip]

8. AP headline: Sun Warns Earth: "Expect Me to Rise in Morning"

At this point, disappointment in the Obama Administration making news is like people being surprised when water is wet. It's just par for the course; I don't know why he needs to warn us anymore. It'll be news when he adopts ANY liberal position on economic issues.

[RobinA]

12. Ain't It the Truth

Warn me if you plan to do anything remotely liberal and I'll pay attention.

[russspeakeasy]

54. Perfectly said.

[Lasher]

9. The left warns Obama administration: You won't like the turnout this November.

[Myrina]

13. +100

Indeed.

[Odin2005]

15. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Man, if Romney wins because of this kind of shit...

I just. I don't even know.

So fucked up.

[Lasher]

40. That is my worry.

It's 2012 already. You'd think Obama would throw a bone or two to his base between now and November.

[patrice]

48. You have it backward! Those who are intent upon damaging an encumbent DON'T RECEIVE BONES.

[patrice]

49. There is NO percentage in giving your avowed enemies anything. Get a f*ing clue. You defeat yourself

[patrice]

53. But then, perhaps THAT is the point. Who knows, on the internet!

[jaxx]

21. Really? Suppressing voting turnout?

Interesting.

[Lasher]

24. Yes, I'm afraid he seems to be.

Hope this turns out better than it looks right now.

Really.

[jaxx]

25. Really?

[Lasher]

32. What is that supposed to mean?

If you have something to say, say it. This is a discussion board. Let's discuss.

[jaxx]

41. Who is suppressing turnout?

President Obama, via sources?
Those who think staying home will punish the President?

[Lasher]

50. President Obama, by his deeds.

His is not a very smart message to be sending the already disillusioned Democratic base at the beginning of a year in which he hopes to be re-elected.

You can blame the voters for their reactions, but it's like saying it's the fish's fault because you can't catch any of them or the corn's fault because it won't grow.

Who do you think is suppressing turnout?

[jaxx]

51. The comment that said

you won't like the turnout this November.

Using The Hill and 'sources' as truth isn't productive....or progressive.

[Lasher]

63. You think my prediction will suppress voter turnout?

Please, you can't be serious. Get real, not a single person will either go to the polls or not because of what I said.

And how many Democrats will stay home because somebody used The Hill as a source at this website? How many people will even read this thread? And of those who will, how many will remember in November that they saw it? Certainly not enough to perceptibly affect voter turnout.

You're not making any sense. Tell me, what do you think it means to be "productive?" In your world, are we being "productive" and "progressive" if we focus only on our advantages while ignoring our vulnerabilities?

[frylock]

66. only on the DU does an anonymous poster have greater powers than a democratic president..

that enjoy the support of %86 of self-described liberal democrats. at least if you listen to the "shutup and vote the way you're told to vote" crowd.

[leftyohiolib]

28. obama warns the left: you wont like romney as president

dont fall prey to your own short sightedness

[Lasher]

39. That is true.

But the left won't turn out in the numbers we need if 'He's not Romney' is the best campaign slogan we can come up with.

We must all beware the pitfalls of shortsightedness.

[Hugabear]

45. You can bet your ass the rethugs will be voting "He's not Obama" in November

They'll hold their nose and vote for a repuke they can't stand (Romney) if it means getting rid of a president they absolutely loathe (Obama).

[Lasher]

55. There's a good chance you're right.

A lot of them don't like Romney but he's probably their only electable candidate. Many disillusioned Republicans stayed home in 2008. There was The Worst President in Living Memory (according to scholar surveys) for them to regret. Obama is not George W Bush, and this virtue helped him win the Presidency and the Nobel Peace Prize. This factor (as well as 'He's not Romney') won't be as significant this year. And in 2008 many of us on the Left believed an Obama Presidency would be more to our liking than it's turned out to be. Further, as you pointed out, the Right now has Obama to hate more than they did back then.

I'm not saying Obama has nothing that works in his favor. But these factors are to be ignored at our peril.

[RobinA]

65. Actually,

this liberal who won't be turning out is being looonnng-sighted. I'll risk Romney to send the message to future Dem candidates that this shite just ain't gonna fly. I canNOT support this stuff anymore as we take the "at least he's not as bad as a Repub" train to hell. It's death by thousand cuts from a Dem or catastrophe from a Repub. The catastrophe will get things headed back up faster than the slow death. Or not. But if not, the result is the same.

Just the view from where I sit.

[leftyohiolib]

69. "Just the view from where I sit" maybe youre sitting on your head cause youre not thinking

the last 8 years of bush really changed alot didnt it. you want to condemn someone elses kids to war with iran. give the social security trust fund to the coporate raider. are you employed? cause alot arent and theyre counting on u.i. you are going to elect to screw all those people and do it out of selfish spite.
change comes from us being active not pouting

[RobinA]

72. Do You Seriously

believe that war with Iran is less likely with Obama (D) than with Whoever (R)? I don't. I also think that the Social Security trust fund is in just as much danger under the present administration than under an (R) administration. See, I think it's in MORE danger under this administration because with them you won't know its happening until it's too late. When Repubs come in guns blazing for SS and Medicare there will be no question what they are aiming for.

Yes, I am employed. Yes, I have been unemployed and collected benefits.

Selfish spite? Pouting? Neither has anything to do with me. Try - voting for what I believe in. Or not. I used to be opposed to voting only for the perfect candidate, as I didn't believe there was such a thing. I still believe in flexibility. However, we are now at a point where we are cutting right into the Constitution, pandering to a dangerous degree, and in general not upholding or even attempting to uphold the values I believe in.

[leftyohiolib]

74. well if theyre both the same then vote dem

if theres no difference then why vote repub is it just because you KNOW they will screw you and the dems maybe ? if youre playing russian roulette you want a gun full of bullets rather then the gun with only one because you know the full gun will kill you? that's your logic?

[woo me with science]

31. +1000000

[Beacool]

38. Well said!!! n/t

[Hugabear]

44. Hugabear warns Democrats who don't vote: You won't like a rethug president

Whether it be Romney, Santorum, or (shudder) Ron Paul - guarantee you won't like it.

You think having a "centrist" Democratic president is bad - just wait.

[RobinA]

73. I'll Vote

for a centrist Dem. But I don't see one. All I see is a handful of nuts on one side and a right of center "Dem" on what's supposed to be the other side.

[patrice]

46. Yeah, we saw how well "the Left's" strategy worked in '10. Promoting defeat of a Democratic

incumbent?

[frylock]

67. the left turned out in 2010, but you already knew that..

no, it was the precious independants that obama seeks that fucked up 2010 for yall.

[Odin2005]

17. Looks like all his recent populist rhetoric is a sham.

[tawadi]

18. Many don't need a 'warning'

They have nothing to lose.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Dude, I don't like our economy period. But it is W.'s fault, not Obama's.

We are broke and up to our eyeballs in debts, thanks to W.'s tax break for the rich, Iraq War and bank bailout. Now we have to make do with what we have.

[a simple pattern]

26. It's not W's tax break anymore.

All he had to do was let them expire.

[patrice]

33. The House vote to extend for the middle-class only significantly damaged that possibility +

ending DADT, the Dream Act, and Un-employment Benefits, all, were caught in the same train wreck created by the House, with the Senate looking on.

[leftyohiolib]

35. to do that would have cost unemployment insurance for the, well , unemployed

and unless you were unemployed at the time then you have no place from which to talk. and if you were then you shouldnt speak for everyone. many people still have their homes b/c of that deal. he was held hostage by the house repubs and paid the ransom. you cant blame potus but nice try though.

[patrice]

58. Absolutely artificial construct = to extract those tax breaks from the WHOLE context of their

evolution.

wow.

[Orsino]

29. I am outraged!

"He must stick to the $1.047 trillion spending cap he agreed to with GOP leaders, which means he will call for less discretionary spending than he did last year."

Damn Obama for electing all those Republicans to Congress! Damn him!

[BlueCaliDem]

47. My sentiment exactly

and yet some are still too bullheaded to see the forest for the trees and instead of rectify that mistake, will help elect more Republicans so they can continue pushing Obama's face into a corner and wail he's not moving forward. Ugh.

[patrice]

57. Ain't anonymity great?! Especially for certain of the employed who seem to have so much time to

hang out on the internet and push shit against the President in order to distract from our REAL problem, CONGRESS.

[woo me with science]

30. Here we go again.

Some on the left have pushed vigorously for a financial transactions tax on the trade of stocks, bonds and derivatives. Liberal Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) have introduced such a proposal in Congress.

Sperling and other senior administration officials have not embraced the financial transactions tax, which proponents say would dampen excessive speculation.

Administration officials worry Republicans could frame the proposal as a tax on 401(k) retirement funds, a potentially damaging election-year charge.

Obama’s senior advisers appear more inclined to push a tax on financial institutions, such as was included in the president’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal to recoup the costs of the 2008-2009 Wall Street bailout.

[n2doc]

52. Doesn't matter

Repubs in the House set the budget. Senate modifies. That's where the fights will be. Has Obama vetoed any budget bill yet?

Obama never has had the stomach to propose a truly liberal agenda when it comes to budgets and stimulus packages. So this doesn't sound like anything new.

[Doctor_J]

61. Excellent campaign slogan for the president

part II: whadya gonna do, vote for Romney?

[AngryAmish]

68. I guess we don't like it when you sentence millions to grinding, India level poverty

Watch the corpses stack up in the street.

[dcsmart]

75. I am a democrat. campaigned for the pres will do it again. end of story....

[rug]

76. Doesn't look like it's happened yet. When it does it will be breaking. As it it is, it is analysis.