General Discussion

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

58. It is sad that so few at DU understand this, even though it is right out in the open

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:45 PM

Jan 2013

As you said it, this deal means that the fascists own the future -- to which I would add, for at least a generation. It will take us at least a generation to fight back at the state level to rein in the Gerrymandering. Until we do that, we will never be able to get the revenues back where they were for basically the 50 years of growth following WWII.

It is not just this one deal that did this. It was the Beltway, "third way" dems decision to oust Hoard Dean and drop the 50-state strategy. it was Obama's decision to form his own campaign company and basically campaign AGAINST the Democratic Party, splintering our limited resources. It was Obama's disposition to never really stand up for anything, thereby setting the expectation among Republicans that if they don't roll him completely, they have failed.

It is not one thing. This is just more of the same.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Krugman's Perspective on the Deal [View all] highplainsdem Jan 2013 OP

He nails it. Tom Rinaldo Jan 2013 #1

he does. roguevalley Jan 2013 #16

Yes, he did nail it. Raksha Jan 2013 #68

I believe Obama is not going to negotiate with them over the debt ceiling. DCBob Jan 2013 #2

I believe that too.. n/t mountain grammy Jan 2013 #39

that just about sums it up. Faryn Balyncd Jan 2013 #3

Kicking the can down the road is not a win for anyone. Dawgs Jan 2013 #4

I love Obama, but I have never seen him stand firm and refuse to retreat. Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #5

That's right. The flip side of negotiation is appeasement. As the UK learned in the late 30s, the coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #49

Yeah, I'm okay with this latest deal. But I was also okay with going off the cliff, and thought Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #74

He has said flat out that he does NOT -- Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2013 #83

Actually ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #89

Here is the problem Doctor_J Jan 2013 #6

Mmmm.... Ravioli bar. Orrex Jan 2013 #23

Obama has never stood firm. He is not going to change. Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #7

Here's the thing: ProSense Jan 2013 #8

I'm ok with this temporary deal, although the estate tax is now permanent. Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #10

Possibly, but ProSense Jan 2013 #11

I think that's the best part of all Freddie Jan 2013 #20

The provisions are good, so the negotiating style was good alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #14

The difference is in the short-term effects versus the long-term effects. Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #19

Like I said, I gauge things by effect alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #21

Right. For example, Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #47

No, the effects of climate change and good predictive evidence on the other points are clear enough alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #48

I respect you too, but I think you're underestimating Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #55

Here's exactly what I mean: Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #57

+1 woo me with science Jan 2013 #87

You aren't the only one. Raksha Jan 2013 #69

Oh, snap! Sock! Pow! KA-POW! - n/t coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #50

I learned a lesson early in my career ewagner Jan 2013 #34

+1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #51

Truer words were never spoken. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #66

Very true! Raksha Jan 2013 #70

It's like this Tom Rinaldo Jan 2013 #30

For some ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #40

Are you honestly suggesting that DUers miss the style of Dubya? MessiahRp Jan 2013 #77

The "cowboy, absolute certainty" ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #86

Applause. October Jan 2013 #44

Agree. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #35

I think it has more to do with basic negotiation strategy bhikkhu Jan 2013 #42

If President Obama can't stand firm on raising the debt ceiling, the Senate Democrats must. RickFromMN Jan 2013 #9

This deal is only bad based on speculation about the next fight alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #12

And speculation about the next fight is based on 4 years Doctor_J Jan 2013 #31

I don't agree alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #33

+1 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #43

Exactly- what we have is a continuing narrative bhikkhu Jan 2013 #46

"IF..." FailureToCommunicate Jan 2013 #13

If refers the other way as well alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #15

It's because they're rooting against him Floyd_Gondolli Jan 2013 #38

I haven't read this in 50 years. Thanks for posting this. russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #17

Thank you for posting that CitizenLeft Jan 2013 #28

Bernie Sanders AND Paul Krugman Agree: This Is As Good As It Gets Right Now cer7711 Jan 2013 #18

Krugman would obviously be a shitty negotiator Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2013 #22

Right and wrong Cosmocat Jan 2013 #24

Has the President held firm in any negotiation to date? CranialRectaLoopback Jan 2013 #25

Sounds good to me Kyad06 Jan 2013 #26

Uhhhh. Obama was pushing for $1.6T of revenue. He got $600Bn BlueStreak Jan 2013 #27

Way to get uptight over what hasn't happened yet Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2013 #29

Which means the same amoubt in spending cuts Kyad06 Jan 2013 #32

I agree, BlueStreak. I was thinking of it in a slightly different way... Peace Patriot Jan 2013 #53

It is sad that so few at DU understand this, even though it is right out in the open BlueStreak Jan 2013 #58

Krugman is expert at using multivariable calculus and differential equations to describe the economy stevenleser Jan 2013 #64

He didn't speak to it at all. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #67

+1 Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2013 #84

Provided President capitulate stands his ground. santamargarita Jan 2013 #36

It's in line with my expectations. allrevvedup Jan 2013 #37

I think Krugman is right. And also that Obama is infinitely smarter than his political foes. Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #41

Agree with Krugman. nt. OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #45

bookmarking for the responses JHB Jan 2013 #52

Does this mean there are no cuts to defense? Nt abelenkpe Jan 2013 #54

Not a dime. They kicked that down the road, and it will get caught up in the next hostage-taking BlueStreak Jan 2013 #59

The only reason sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #56

But at the same time they did this nominal increase in tax rates, they also gave multi-millionaires BlueStreak Jan 2013 #60

Yes, not only sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #61

No question about it. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #65

That about sums it up. sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #72

So Krugman says its generally good and Senator Sanders voted for it. stevenleser Jan 2013 #62

I love that you and the other "pragmatic" third wayers are throwing Sanders' name around. MessiahRp Jan 2013 #78

I'm not a "3rd wayer", but nice try at deflection. You have no explanation so you attack. stevenleser Jan 2013 #81

I've seen a number of people who attack Sanders at every turn, bandy his name about today MessiahRp Jan 2013 #90

You had a really key phrase there... stevenleser Jan 2013 #91

Listen up Paul. It's like this: DevonRex Jan 2013 #63

If that is your theory then why get sore at the natural responses to getting poked? TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #71

It isn't my response DevonRex Jan 2013 #73

WORTHY OF ITS OWN THREAD Skittles Jan 2013 #76

Well said. woo me with science Jan 2013 #80

"...evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #75

Bad taste in what progressives' mouths?? I think most of the progs who wanted Bush Tax Cuts expire Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #79

Yep. mmonk Jan 2013 #82

that seems to move the goalposts hfojvt Jan 2013 #85

K & R PM Martin Jan 2013 #88