Is President Obama setting Rs up for a historic KNOCKOUT in 2012, using 'ROPE-A-DOPE' strategies

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Is President Obama setting Republicans up for a historic KNOCKOUT in 2012, using 'ROPE-A-DOPE' strategies and tactics?

As detailed below by a sports website, for the high-stakes 1974 "Rumble in the Jungle" in Zaire, "Muhammad Ali used the home court advantage, psychological and environmental preparation, rope-a-dope strategy, and controlling the pace to set up the favored George Foreman for defeat. ... the name "rope-a-dope" showed that it was a strategy to bamboozle his opponent. Foreman was so thoroughly beaten that he retired from boxing while still in his prime."

Is President Obama setting Republicans up for a similar historic KNOCKOUT in 2012 using a strategy and some tactics similar to Ali's and Dundee's? To me, the rope-a-dope metaphor is stunningly accurate and complete:

(1) Obama is the wily Muhammed Ali;
(2) Republicans are the heavily-favored George Foreman;
(3) 2012 is the eighth round of the "Rumble in the Jungle";

(4) THE HOME-COURT ADVANTAGE is much higher expected voter turnout for young people, African-Americans, and Hispanics during Presidential-year elections, compared to their expected turnout during midterm-year elections.

(5) PSYCHOLOGICAL PREPARATION is letting Republicans think their mid-term election wins were a game-changer. But most of their gains can be explained by predictable differences between a midterm-year electorate and a Presidential-year electorate. Hispanics were exactly the same proportion of 2010 voters (8 percent) as of 2006 voters, and African-Americans were 10 percent of 2010 voters, exactly the same fraction as in 2006. Similarly, 2012 turnout for young people, Blacks, and Hispanics can be expected to rival their historic 2008 turnout for Obama.

(6) CONTROLLING THE PACE is getting Republicans to agree to let extra Bush-era tax breaks for the top 2 percent expire in December 2012. IMO it is simply BRILLIANT for President Obama to engineer such a deadline for plutocratic tax-breaks, guaranteeing that heavy Republican favoritism for the very wealthy will be a top issue in the 2012 elections.

(7) ENVIRONMENTAL PREPARATION is stimulating the economy to get unemployment down by Fall 2012. Most economists have raised their forecasts for economic growth if the $900-billion Obama-McConnell-Boehner two-year tax deal is enacted. Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) said this week that $150 billion goes to an extra $100,000 a year for the average top-2 percent filer. But, more than offsetting this giveaway to the rich, $600 billion goes to extending unemployment benefits for the "99ers", to a 30 percent cut in FICA, to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and to other middle-class and low-income fiscal programs. The other $150 billion goes to accelerated depreciation and other business tax breaks.

The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed expected stimulative effects of all these fiscal policies and has found they would create millions of extra private-sector jobs. Extension of unemployment benefits would have an especially high "bang for the buck" in extra economic growth and extra private-sector jobs (see http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9518706 ).

(8) THE "ROPE-A-DOPE" STRATEGY is setting HUGE extra Bush tax giveaways to the wealthy to expire during an expected economic upswing, just before a Presidential election. With an improved economy, If unemployment has come down, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and the rest of Republican spokesmen for millionaires won't any longer be able to say "it makes no sense to raise taxes on ANYBODY during a recession".

The issue of Republican fiscal policy tilted way against the poor and middle class IMO will appeal especially to the voter demographics who put Obama in office in 2008 and gave him coat-tails for large majorities in the House and Senate. More-politically-engaged young, African-American, and Hispanic voters IMO can guarantee reversal of 2010 Republican midterm victories in 2012.

And, like George Foreman's defeat in Zaire in 1974, such a reversal could prove DEVASTATING to Republicans for the indefinite future, just as Ruy Teixeira and others long have predicted (see http://lccn.loc.gov/2004273168 and http://www.amazon.com/Permanently-Blue-Democrats-Republican-Generation/dp/0307717992 ).

In 2012, Republicans may in effect RETIRE in their prime, after a historic knockout blow engineered by a "rope-a-dope" strategy.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
************************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.school-for-champions.com/competition/boxing_ali_foreman.htm

"STRATEGY USED BY MUHAMMAD ALI TO BEAT GEORGE FOREMAN IN 1974 by Ron Kurtus ( 2007)

...In 1974, 32-year old former world boxing champion Muhammad Ali fought the younger undefeated Heavyweight Champion, George Foreman, who was heavily favored to win the fight. Ali used an unusual strategy he called "rope-a-dope" to tire Foreman. He then proceeded to knock Foreman out and win the championship. In this head-to-head competition, Ali used deception to get Foreman to overextend himself. The loss to Ali so demoralized Foreman that he retired from boxing at age 28. Muhammad Ali was 32-years old in 1974 and apparently past his prime. He had his jaw broken by Ken Norton in a 1973 fight that he had barely won. Previous to that in 1971, he had been beaten by then-world champion Joe Frazier. Meanwhile George Foreman was at the top of his game, having knocked out both Frazier and Norton, each in two rounds. Foreman was considered an awesome, dangerous boxer and was a favorite to win the bout with Ali. The fight was schedule to take place in the African country of Zaire. It was to be called the "Rumble in the Jungle" by fight promoter Don King. ...

HOME COURT ADVANTAGE With Ali's good looks, flamboyant nature and strong pro-African beliefs, he endeared himself to Zaire's citizens. Meanwhile Foreman trained in isolated from the African people. Although this was probably not an intentional strategy, Ali established Zaire as the "home court advantage" in that the crowd would be rooting for him.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PREPARATION Before the fight, Ali had been boasting how he was too fast for Foreman to keep up with him. Typically, Ali had set up his opponents through boasting and taunting before a fight. He would make fun of an opponent or predict which round he would knock out the opponent. The press would eat this up.

ENVIRONMENTAL PREPARATION Foreman and author Norman Mailer claimed they saw Ali's trainers loosen the ropes before the fight. Foreman was not aware that there was meaning to the madness. It is not certain whether it was Ali's idea or the idea of his trainer Angelo Dundee. Most likely Dundee was instrumental in the whole fight strategy, since he was one of the best fight trainers. ...

ROPE-A-DOPE STRATEGY Ali employed his fight strategy to neutralize Foreman's power and to wear him out. Foreman came out of his corner in the second round expecting a toe-to-toe battle. Instead, Ali leaned back against the ropes and let Foreman flail away at him. We would taunt Foreman to come and get him and then lean back, only protecting his face. This made Foreman angry and later frustrated ... But the give in the ropes was sufficient to reduce the damage. When Foreman did throw a punch at his face, Ali was able to lean back or move his head just enough that the blow missed or had little impact.

CONTROLLING PACE Although he primarily used the rope-a-dope technique, Ali occasionally counter-attacked with fast, crisp blows to Foreman's face. Then he would slip back into the defensive mode. In this way, he was controlling the pace of the fight, according to his liking.

WINS FIGHT By the seventh round, Foreman had essentially punched himself out. His arms were tired and sometimes hanging on his side. Ali then used his speed and energy to do damage to Foreman, who was just trying to get in one good punch for a knockout. Ali taunted Foreman by saying, "George, it that all you've got?" ... In the eighth round, Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman to regain the World Heavyweight Championship. The fight so devastated Foreman psychologically that he retired from boxing at age 28. ...

SUMMARY Muhammad Ali used the home court advantage, psychological and environmental preparation, rope-a-dope strategy, and controlling the pace to set up the favored George Foreman for defeat. Even the name "rope-a-dope" showed that it was a strategy to bamboozle his opponent. Foreman was so thoroughly beaten that he retired from boxing while still in his prime."

[juajen]

1. Nah. NT

[roguevalley]

46. times google

[yourout]

2. The only one getting Knocked out is Obama himself. This bill has more landmines in it than South....

Korea.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. What "landmines"? Can you be specific? All I see is UPSIDE far outweighing

temporary tax give-aways to the top 2 percent.

If this deal does not go through, how much of the $750 billion in secons economic stimulus contained in it do you think Boehner's House will approve after January 1st?

[Union Scribe]

12. Here are a couple threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9724661
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9741672

I bookmarked them because they detail potentially disasterous seeds in the compromise. By the way, even though I disagree with you about what Obama is doing, I appreciate the work you put into the analogy. It was well thought out even if I don't share the conclusions.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. Thanks for your quick response. I haven't spent much time on DU during the past

couple of months, and appreciate your help in catching me up.

The second link deals with something I really know about. IMO the premise is false. In fact, having Treasuryactually pay off substantial non-publicly-tradeable Trust-Fund bonds could set a HUGE favorable precedent for the future.

As I understand it, the temporary payroll tax-cut in the deal is very similar to what we already have since early 2009--"the largest middle-class tax cut in history" Except it's bigger.

Why is this "issue" just surfacing now? To me, it's Republican disinformation, pure and simple.

As for your first link, my eyes glaxe over. Could you interpret it for me?

Thanks again.

[Union Scribe]

18. Hopefully none of it will bite us in the end

so I'd be quite content to have you be right about the payroll tax cut.

The first link is about the GOP being able to avoid the continuance of the Build America Bonds program. According to the James Pethokoukis article:

"BABs now account for more than 20 percent of new debt sold by states and local governments thanks to a federal rebate equal to 35 percent of interest costs on the bonds. The subsidy program ends on Dec. 31. And my Reuters colleagues report that a GOP congressional aide said Republicans “have a very firm line on BABS — we are not going to allow them to be included.”

In short, the lack of a BAB program would make it harder for states to borrow to cover a $140 billion budgetary shortfall next year, as estimated by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The long-term numbers are even scarier. Estimates of states’ unfunded liabilities to pay for retiree benefits range from $750 billion to more than $3 trillion."

So, if states like California get pushed to the edge without these BABs, the state GOPs can then start playing hardball trying to pressure the states into cutting employees/wages/benefits, which would of course drastically undercut one of their enemies: public worker unions.

Like I said, hopefully their little seeds with wither and die and none of these scenarios come to pass, but I imagine things like this are what the poster meant by landmines in the compromise.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. I see--the first link is about an R plan to complete the looting of public employee

pensions, sticking it to the unions once again.

For years, Republican governors like Christie Whitman of NJ funded state "tax cuts". disproportionately favoring the wealthy, by not contributing what actuaries said they had to contribute to pensions in order to meet contractual obligations.

Now apperntly a last-ditch effort to plug the finding gap with federally-subsidized BABs is being terminated.

IMO, this is big news if you're a public employee, and regrettable for everyone if the union is progressive (like the teachers, not the Corrections Officers).

But IMO long-term budget gaps possibly under a trillion dollars are a big yawn for most Americans, nothing to get upset about, like raising the Social Security retirement age.

[roguevalley]

47. there is nothing good in this. Pass it and I'm screwed. Don't pass

it and if Obama isn't lying, I'm still screwed. I want the latter because the fuckers won't get the pickings off my carcass and my babie's future cracklings.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

80. Neither corporate execs nor governors nor any other officials can be trusted to

live up to their legal obligations to long-time workers anymore. IMO this is very sad.

IMO the die was cast years age when Governors started funding state "tax cuts" (disproportionately for the very wealthy) with state employee pension contribution money.

[FrenchieCat]

3. We shall see......

but I could see it....

But then, I'm more into achievements
than simply criticizing cause I can,
and certainly I'm not one of the many
who believes that they are smarter than
this President, but ain't done shit in their
lives to actually be able to prove it
other than type on the the Internet....
something even a two year old can do! :rofl:

So yeah.....

[AnOhioan]

4. He is not that smart.

[CakeGrrl]

6. And you know this how?

[AnOhioan]

8. A smart man would have told the Republicans where to get off...

instead of carrying their water.

[OhioBlue]

5. k&r

could be....

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Well that makes by my count at least two positive RECS wiped away by the

"intant UNREC" crowd, who apparently read only the headline before pushing the button in the first few minutes--or even in the first few SECONDS.

Thank you.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

42. It's at least 6 now. Went from 2 to zero, up to 4, down to 2, and now it's zero again.

[JVS]

7. They'll have all three branches and then they'll be SCREWN!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. Did you even read my post to the end, let alone click through to the excellent URLs

I spent an hour finding?

[FrenchieCat]

13. I did.....

But then I read, cause I don't think I'm as smart as the President.

Facts and Evidence with links to reputable information turns me on.
That's why I'm on the Internet.....to get informed...
plus as a Liberal, I keep an open mind,
cause that's supposed to be part of what being a Liberal is
about....or else, at least, it used to be.

So Thank you for your research and your post! :hi:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Thank you, FC. But I still want to hear from JVS, who I don't think shares your

responsible attitude about posting replies, or about "why I'm on the Internet ... to get informed".

Unfortunately, apparently fewer and fewer DUers share your motivation for reading and posting.

I know you are tellling the truth, FC, because IMO you've been one of the top posters here for YEARS. I've clicked on posts with your authorship hundreds of times over the past decade.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I also just posted it to my facebook......

And I have plenty Friends! :toast:

[JVS]

20. Fuck no! It was way too fucking long!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, DU apparently has become a VIDEO GAME

for some. You see a new thread posted, and, without reading it, anonymously you press one of two buttons.

JVS, at least you posted to express SOME opinion, however ill-informed, rather than remaining ananymous.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Plus folks are allowed to say stuff without back up at all!

which makes this more of a propaganda parlor
than anything else.

It's sad, and I see my days at DU numbered,
due to the lack of intellectual curiosity exhibited
by so many, lotsa closed minds,
hyperbole headline, and sound bytes talking points
which mean nothing used constantly.

and forget about nuance, complexities and simple
political realities. That's out here as well....
except for a very few.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

31. 'I see my days at DU numbered, due to the lack of intellectual curiosity' I'm right there

with you, FC.

My new DU strategy is to go onto DU only every few feeks, when I have a REALLY GOOD IDEA for working out the details of an insight. I spend an hour or so writing, and then I concentrate on replies to my thread only.

Then I leave after my thread has gotten several hundred posts, not to return again for another few weeks.

I don't go on DU every day anymore--it's too disappointing and frustrating--not like the good old days for us long-timers.

[Paladin]

53. Don't Sweat It---You'll Still Have Lots Of Friends.

Friends like David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and the overwhelming majority of the right-wing punditry who are suddenly proclaiming Obama to be a master statesman on the basis of his tax "negotiations." Consider the company you're keeping......

[ProgressiveEconomist]

78. Don't forget Bill Clinton, Sen John Kerry(D-MA), Sen. John Rockefeller(D-WV), etc, etc.

IMO Democratic House members like Weiner are riled mainly because they finally came to realize they no longer are relevant for the next two years, having lost their House majority primarily because many ran AWAY from President Obama's excellent leadership on health care reform financial reform, economic recovery, etc. etc.

Obama's cutting House Dems out of negotiations with McConnell and Boehner over the tax deal was their first taste of the what they are going to be eating for the next two years. Meanwhile, Obama no longer has to kowtow to the likes of Wiener on the left and Lieberman on the right. He can use Executive Orders freely since a Democratic Congress no longer will hold the President hostage.

Congressional Democrats no longer can be expected to deliver any more victories for President Obama. So he'll issue Executive Orders, have three photo-ops a week to boost his poll ratings, and negotiate with the REPUBLICANS who'll control the House.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Well, I certainly hope so. nt

[MiniMe]

19. If the tax cuts go through, and the economy improves

Then the R's will say "See, it worked". But it won't work like that. It will not put people back to work, and it is going to hurt the SS fund and add more to the debt.

[pansypoo53219]

21. that is what i am hoping.

cause i do NOT want the rich to get ONE MORE FUCKING DOLLAR.
clinton showed the path to fixing the deficit. republicans are like crack whores with their need for tax cuts ONLY. they have no soul.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paulie]

25. This is the same Rope-A-Dope bullshit we saw during the health insurance debate

Bullshit then, bullshit now. It's more of the same "keeping the powder dry" just in case. We still have some left over from 2006, dry and JUST AS USELESS.

How do we know this? If the unemployment extension was for 24 months, and the tax break on the top 2% was for 12 months... it's not and then there is that obscene estate tax provision. And the cutting of SS funds, when it would be much better to remove the cap, and then graduate the rates. But we don't have the votes. We have had majorities in both houses and the bully pulpit of the Presidency. And what do we have to show for it? Begging to help our fellow citizens during a time of need, pleading with the NOpublicans to not let people be homeless during x-mas. WTF?!?!?!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. Did Health Reform pass or not? IMO Obama's accomplishements are HISTORIC, and

they come from being able to count votes and do what's necessary to get a majority.

IMO that's the only way to go if you want to help the American people, not jsut ensconce yourself in office for a lifetime. IMO, Democrats just are not used to actually WINNING as we have under Obama. Take a breath, get a grip, and realize how good this man Obama actually IS.

Would Republicans have passed $750 billion in second economic stimulus after January 1st without Obama's deal? Do you want unemployemnt to come down or not? Choose between being "pure" with crazy Dennis Kucinich and feeding your family with Obama.

[Paulie]

29. No Health Reform didn't pass, Health Insurance "Reform" passed

We could have had a public option, if not medicare for all, IF HE WOULD HAVE TRIED!

We HAVE the majority. Or had it until the debacle of this past election.

Instead of 24 months and the estate tax changes, we could have done it for a year, 24 months on the unemployment extension, no estate tax changes, and then use the $150 billion or so for the 2%ers for infrastructure projects.

But instead he went and did a closed door deal with the NOpublicans. Is it too much for the leader of the party to not end-run the party?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. I agree with Obama during his press conference this week. "This is the Public Option

alll over again".

Some Democrats are just not satisfied until they "improve" legislation so much that it loses, and the American people get NOTHING! I'm tired of losing, and am willing to accept second-best rather than the NOTHING you seem to crave risking every time.

[Paulie]

33. You feel like this is winning? Looking weak against the obstruction of the NOpublicans?

Look what that got us on Nov 2nd...

A dem voting republican vs. a real republican, and look what happened? Look at the summer during the health insurance debate, with the rise of the tea party?

Look at what the nothing the Bush regime got us in 2008? It was historic. What do we have now? This is winning?

[FrenchieCat]

34. Tea party was a concoction of the Republican moneyed interest groups

which the media promoted non stop.

What is this Dem voting Republican stuff?

Your post reads like a lament, but is short on sense of anykind. :crazy:

[Paulie]

36. And the white house went dark during their birth

After they threw the popular parts of the package under the bus, they sat and waited until the bi-partisan group ran out the clock. Who's choice was that?

And if I recall the blue dogs had a "D" next to their names, even the ones the white house supported, which are gone now.

Finally, :crazy:? :wtf:

[FrenchieCat]

38. I remember DUers laughing about them.....

and forgetting to show up at town halls.

But yeah...it's all one man's fault,
not the moderateness of our Senate.

But be still my heart,
You know how to make it sound so easy.
Hell, just blame somebody,
make a face, and be mad.
The teabaggers do that too (although they didn't get to stop HCR
exactly as they wanted to)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Winning is not getting NOTHING. And where was all the Democratic populism BEFORE

the midterms?

I'll tell you where it was. Democrats had their hands out to wealthy "campaign donors", who would pay tens of thousands of dollars for votes for the top 2 percent. IMO that's whey Pelosi couldn't bring up to bottom-98 percent-only bill before the midterms.

AFTER the "market has closed" on Election Day, scores of Democrats shift from fundraising mode to poower-grabbing mode. Tactics change, but what stays the same is the urge to ensconce oneself in office for LIFE, rather than GET THINGS DONE.

[Paulie]

37. We lost because we wouldn't support the thing you said we WON on

Instead the dems ran away from their own winning issues. If they were so hawsome, it should have been a repeat of 2008. Is the disconnect with people like me, or with the Dems? And who's the leader of the Dems? Thought so.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. That's exactly what we're afraid of - this is the Public Option all over again.

Once again, he is selling us down the river for the sake of the uber-wealthy. He is pissing on our heads and saying it's rain.

[monkeydog]

59. why didn't we make them filibuster on anything?

That would be rope-a-dope.

That would be making them fight hard and tucker themselves out.

It's not rope-a-dope, its shameful, cynical politics that have backfired.

[AdHocSolver]

26. And how do the people benefit if they get screwed by the Democrats rather than by Republicans?

There is so much wishful thinking in the outcomes assumed in Obama's "plan" that if it fails, and it has so little chance of succeeding, that the people will be much worse off in 2012 than they are now.

A major flaw in the plan is the assumption that the "plan" will actually improve the economy. It won't. The economy is going to get worse over the next two years.

Giving tax breaks to the rich has never created jobs for Americans. This fact of life has been dealt with again and again throughout DU.

None of the proposals you mentioned will stimulate the U.S. economy. In fact, Obama's pushing a NAFTA type deal with Korea will eliminate tens of thousands of American jobs, just like NAFTA did.

The only actions that will help the U.S. economy are to get rid of NAFTA and all of the trade deals that favor offshoring of jobs to slave wage countries so that it becomes profitable for American companies to hire American workers and still make a profit. This means take the profit out of exporting jobs which is what these trade deals and tax laws now do.

The strategy of the Democratic Party leadership seems to be to replace the Republican Party as the party of the wealthy and the corporations. The Democratic leadership is demonstrating that they will sell out the people for the chance to replace the Republicans as the tools of the elite.

The success of the wingnut Tea Party candidates has shaken the elite which has relied up to now on the Republicans. What we are witnessing now is a duel between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party for the chance to serve the wealthy and the corporations.

The two parties are now competing to see which can bamboozle and screw the public to enrich the elite more successfully.

[FrenchieCat]

32. the plan is the assumption that the "plan" will actually improve the economy. It won't?

Sounds like you are the one making the assumption,
without numbers provided as evidence.

As for the taxcompromise plan....
here is the breakdown,
because stating that it's all a tax cut for the rich
is not true......although it sounds better to say this
when pushing a certain agenda.


Here's the breakdown:




I'm sure in terrible economic times, you don't mind the 10% bracket
enjoying a 50% tax increase....so that makes me really glad you
aren't President. Cause to hear you, the only that matters is the 2 percent....
screw the other 98%!

And screw unemployment benefits, I guess.

You sound cold hearted. Like one who would concern himself more about the
deficit, even if it mean middle class folks finding an extra $3,000 just to pay their taxes.

[TheKentuckian]

39. *Middle class meaning around 200k*

This a very stupid proposal other than as a fig leaf to sell loading up the upper middle class favored pets at the expense of the country.

You and Obama are emulating Bush in your sales pitch for this turkey.

Snake oil and appeals to greed.

[AdHocSolver]

40. Impressive graphics, but...

The wealthy will take their new found money and invest it in foreign corporations where they can make a better return on investment.

The middle income tax cuts will be used to buy a lot of imported cheap junk from China, India, and other low wage countries, as a majority of what is available to purchase is imported cheap junk.

The extension of unemployment benefits, as worthy as it is, will similarly flee the U.S. to buy cheap foreign junk as that is what is mostly available to buy.

Businesses will write off the cost of capital investments of the industrial machinery they build and sell to their subsidiaries in China and India. (The government statistics will show this as an increase in GDP which "proves" the economy is improving even as other government statistics show an increase in unemployment. Economists and politicians will claim that there is no way to explain this anomaly.)

A lot of the technology developed in the U.S. has now been transferred by the corporations to their subsidiaries and trading partners in China, India, and elsewhere.

Since unemployment in the U.S. is high and it is going to get worse in spite of these tax cuts, tax revenues are going to fall much more than they are now, so the U.S. is going to borrow a lot of money from foreign countries (such as China) to pay for them. At some point (there are indications it may be sooner rather than later), the U.S. is going to have to pay more interest to borrow money, or countries are going to stop lending the U.S. money. The economic collapse will not be pretty.

All of the economic models being touted for this tax package are a fancied up form of trickle down economics. They have failed to produce up to now, and they will continue to fail.

The only economic policy that will work is one that will bring jobs back to the U.S., and the only policy that will do that is to remove the huge profits from offshoring jobs to low wage countries.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Well screw it than......

everything is doomed!

:eyes:

[AdHocSolver]

45. In order to solve a problem, one first has to understand the problem.

A wise person once said (and I paraphrase), "Don't listen to what they say. Look at what they DO!"

The main problem with the U.S. economy is loss of jobs, not taxes. The offshoring of manufacturing means that there is no REAL wealth creation in the U.S. The stock market does not create REAL wealth. It only redistributes monetary wealth upwards.

Since our politicians, in fact, practically entire governments are bought and paid for by the wealthy elite, there are essentially two things that the people can do to fight back.

Politically, the people have to start at the local level to run and elect progressives to local political posts wherever possible. Stop being a passive electorate. If you don't like what the party leaders offer you, promote your own leadership, one election and one politician at a time.

Economically, stop providing the elite with more ways to make money. Buy from local producers, and buy only goods "Made in USA". Refuse to buy foreign made junk. Tell the management of the places where you shop that you want to see a broad range of made in America items, and you won't shop there again until you do. Stop being a passive consumer.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

50. 'None of the proposals you mentioned will stimulate the economy' Even John McCain's

campaign economist disagrees with you.

But it's not your fault you are woefully misinformed. Media coverage of what economists of all political stripes think about the effect of fiscal sitmulus options has been an EPIC FAIL.

See the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's' estimates of the likely range of possible effects of each million dollars spent on each option, at the link I gave you under point (7) of the lead-in for this thread. I'll give it to you again:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9518706&mesg_id=9518709

[AdHocSolver]

71. Most economists are the "priests" of capitalism.

Having earned a degree in economics many years ago, I have learned to take the blatherings of professional economists with the proverbial grain of salt.

Like many other fields of endeavor. one gets ahead by parroting the established leaders. After awhile, "experts" lower down the pecking order actually believe the nonsense that they spout.

When I would bring newspaper articles to my economics professors that contradicted some theory that they spouted in class, and I asked them to explain the discrepancies between theory and the facts (newspapers had some real journalists back then), the usual professorial response was that if I asked a question like that, I must not understand the theory very well. After having taken many economics classes (as well as logic, history, and political science courses), I became skeptical enough to discern the valid explanations and theories from the bovine manure.

There is a difference between being an active learner versus being a passive receptacle of someone else's ideas.

[LeftyAndProud60]

43. Oh no, not the "Chess" shit again. NT

[democracy1st]

44. LMAO chess is going to run their azz right off the cliff!

[stevenleser]

61. You realize that isnt funny or interesting anymore, right? After about 500 times...

it just isnt...

[Smashcut]

49. OMG. This is bordering on delusion at this point

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Wow

If the economy is seen as improving he will win. If it is seen as stagnant or regressing he will lose. Everything else is noise.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phx_Dem]

54. Rec. . .

(8) THE "ROPE-A-DOPE" STRATEGY is setting HUGE extra Bush tax giveaways to the wealthy to expire during an expected economic upswing, just before a Presidential election. With an improved economy, If unemployment has come down, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and the rest of Republican spokesmen for millionaires won't any longer be able to say "it makes no sense to raise taxes on ANYBODY during a recession".

Indeed. I'm just afraid Republicans will wake up and realize they've been snookered before they vote.

:smoke:

[TheKentuckian]

65. Don't count on "won't be able to talk about" for Republicans

They've been running on demonstrably failed ideology for generations.

They have proven to be essentially immune from any need to propose new ideas and responsibility for the unquestionable failure of their policies and limits of their world view.

Proof positive of the great weakness of a two party system, it doesn't require evolution. You are perfectly allowed to stick with clear failure if you can break down the opposition.

The regressive zealots do not tire. The American people cast them into the wilderness for decades on end but they just bided their time and worked on their marketing strategy.

The fuckers believe the same shit and worse as they did when they set of the depression before the turn of the 20th century. Now "progressives" share the same root ideology but are less bigoted and more apt to be semi-tolerant of some level of safety net.

[rug]

55. Just like Chuck Wepner.

[stevenleser]

56. Of course, some people brought up "chess" as they will anytime you assert Obama is using strategy

Unfortunately, you are trying to reason with a crowd that doesnt want to hear anything other than the latest reason to dislike Obama.

Any analysis, no matter how strong or factual, that doesn't fit in with that groupthink will not be accepted.

[monkeydog]

57. rope-a-dope: you're doing it wrong

I think you are confusing "rope-a-dope" with "standing around and punching yourself in the face," which is a more apt analogy.

Barring the biggest comeback in history, we will be waking up in Nov 2012 to a republican house, senate and exec. branch.

Anyone for 3 dimensional chess?

[jenmito]

58. K&R up to 0. I agree with this-with the timing of the tax cut expiration, etc. Your OP would've

fared better on a Democratic site, which I'm starting to wonder if this site is still such a place.

[GSLevel9]

60. fiction. nt

[SharonAnn]

62. I wish, but I don't think so.

[frustrated_lefty]

63. Of course.

And for an October surprise, he'll be pulling out his light saber.

[former9thward]

64. The OP is wrong on several points.

1) The tax deal does not include anything for the "99"ers. They will continue to drop off the rolls. No new extensions were added for them. The existing structure of the various extension tiers is just being maintained.

2) The cut in the SS rate is a disaster. No President has ever lowered the rate no matter the economic conditions. Once it is lowered no one is going to raise it back because that would be a dreaded "tax increase". This will lead to a SS deficit which will be paid for by benefit cuts. It is a R dream.

3) Yes there will be an increase in turnout in 2012. But there will be an increase in turnout for everyone, R included. Look at the turn out figures and you will see Rs always turn out much heavier in presidential election years than mid-terms.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

72. TY. Yr 1st point about 'tiers' of UI benefits well may be correct. But the other two are

extremely doubtful.

Do you have *****INTERNET LINKS***** to back up *****ANY***** of your assertions?

AAUI under current law there are FOUR TIERS of Federal unemployment insurance benefit extensions to the basic 26 weels funded by states.

State eligibility for the federal money varies according to state unemployment rates, and individual eligibility for all the tiers is determined by varying laws in individual states. To keep up with the complexity, one's best bet is to find a FAQ on a State labor department website, such as http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/messages/euc08-q&a.htm#Tier3 for CT. Since the information is used to guide vulnerable people, it has to be correct and kept updated.

TIER 1 brings the maximum benefit period to 46 weeks after the basic 26 week maximum.

TIER 2 brings it to 60 weeks in eligible states;

TIER 3 brings it to 73 in eligible states; and finally

TIER 4 brings the maximum unemployment insurance benefit period to 99 wieeks in eligible states.

Extension for the '99ers' would require a FEDERAL TIER 5 which does not exist in any state under current law. But I don't know whether such a "TIER 5" will make it into the final tax deal bill.

Again I ask, DO YOU HAVE A LINK?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

74. GRAPHIC LINK: Yr 3d point about expected demographics of voters in 2010 DEFINITELY is wrong

DEFINITELY is wrong if President Obama can energize young white people and minorities the way he did last time.

http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Reports%20on%20the%20Electorate/Representational%20Bias%20in%20the%202008%20Electorate/Figure%206%20Rep%20Bias%202008.pdf shows turnout rates by race * age * gender for 2004 and 2008.

White people as a whole have given victories to Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in ***EVERY*** election since 1964 (that includes McCain-Palin, astoundingly). Turnout of whites above age 30 was virtually unchanged from 2004 to 2008, as clicking through the link above shows clearly shows (2004 is the top bar in each cell of the chart).

But African-Americans, Hispanics, and younger whites increased their turnouts from 2004 to 2008 enough to give President Obama a solid victory for his first term.

With a 2010 campaign focused on extremist, corrupt, and VENAL Republican favoritism for the very wealthy, the President can expect to energize these voters once again, while turning OFF older whites from enthusiastic support for Rs.

Case closed.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

79. No rejoinder?

[ibegurpard]

66. oh please...

[Moondog]

67. Oh, please. At best, this is magical thinking.

[polichick]

68. No, start believing what you're seeing and hearing. The sooner, the better. nt

[Onlooker]

69. Wily Obama failed to avert near record losses in the last elections

If Obama is a chessplayer, as some in the past have maintained, he's what's called a patzer, a rank amateur. If Obama is trying to play Rope a Dope, then he so far has only managed to get entangled in the rope, while the Republicans stand around and laugh.

[demwing]

70. Dream on

if it helps.

But you might want to consider the other reality, where Obama either doesn't understand the the issues you care about, or is too politically inexperienced to be effective in resolving those issues. Of course, there is another possibility - the one where Obama was playing three dimensional rope a dope before the election, and "is who he is" now. He just doesn't care, because he's as corrupt as anyone else.

[wackywaggin]

73. You don't rise to the top

as fast as Obama did without being one of them or making unrealistic promises.

Heretic Wack :0)

[budkin]

75. No, he'll praise the GOP candidate and say he's looking forward to working with him

[rachael7]

76. Delightful Idea, but...

could not possibly be more wrong, I'm afraid. We've had this 11 dimensional chess argument before, and if that's the game Obama is playing, he sucks at it. Or else he wants something different than most of us do, because he sure isn't doing much of a job at giving the majority of the country anything they actually wanted.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

77. 'Isn't giving the country anything they wanted'? Historic health and financial reform;

largest middle-class tax cut in history, about to be broadened extended for two more years; cutting out the rapacious corporate middleman in education loans; fastest recession private-jobs turnaround in decades--

--What did he campaign on that he HAS NOT done?

IMO you and many other DUers have eaten up Fox News probaganda like it was a pint of Rocky Road icecream. Obama is the most productive and transformational President in DECADES.

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Getting severely beaten about the head and shoulders is a GREAT stragety! Look where it got Ali...

He's a mumbling shell of a man.

Strategery indeed.

[Juche]

82. It'd be nice but

I have been hearing this strategy for years now. I think it is just projection.

I agree 2012 will be different. In 2012 non-whites will be about 29% of the electorate and millennials will be about 22%. There is obviously some overlap, but both groups barely showed up in the midterms (millennials were about 12%, nonwhites maybe 20%). So 51% in 2012 vs 32% in 2010 of the electorate (again, the real numbers will be lower due to overlap) being fairly liberal will see different results. Also consider that at least in the senate many races we lost were squeakers. The GOP barely won senate seats in Illinois, PA & Wisconsin. Mildly higher non-white and millennial turnout would mean 56 senators. If anything, turnout among millennials and nonwhites will be higher than in 2008, when they were about 18% and about 25% respectively. It'll be closer to 22% and 29%.

But I don't think Obama has a strategy. My impression is the 2 year deadine was something the GOP probably wanted because they figure they'll win in 2012, and even if they don't they can just 'blackmail' the economy again.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

83. Nics stats. Do U have a link? Have you read Ruy Teixera or Dylan Loewe (see

the two links for them in the OP). Demographics ultimately is going to turn the US "permanetly blue"--it's just a matter of time. 2012 seems like as good a guess as any subsequent date for the inevitable. African-Americans, Hispanics, and young whites surprised the world in 2008 by putting the ultimate underdog into the WH--why wouldn't they respond even more strongly to a solid campaign against corrupt and venal Republican flunkies for the very wealthy?

Besides, even the calendar says we're overdue for a historic game-changing election, like the ones in 1980, 1960, and 1932.

Here's a great political demographic link for your collection, if you haven't already seen it. Project Vote used November CPS supplements to produce four-way cross-tabl of voter turnout by race * age * gender * (2004 2008). These tabs eliminate the "overlap" you spoke of. Where do your figures come from?

See http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Reports%20on%20the%20Electorate/Representational%20Bias%20in%20the%202008%20Electorate/Figure%206%20Rep%20Bias%202008.pdf

[Juche]

84. Here is my info

Non-whites at about 28% in 2012, about 32% in 2016 and 34/35% in 2020.

Millennials I have read about from various sources including Teixera.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/05/millennial_generation_leads_pr.php

In his May 18 'Public Opinion Snapshot' at the Center for American Progress (CAP) website, Ruy Teixeira expounds on an extremely encouraging development for progressive Democrats, the dawning of the "millennial generation" -- those born between 1978 and 2000 -- as a political force. As Teixeira explains:
Between now and 2018, the number of Millennials of voting age will be increasing by about 4 and a half million a year and Millennial eligible voters by about 4 million a year. And in 2020, the first presidential election where all Millennials will have reached voting age, this generation will be 103 million strong, of which about 90 million will be eligible voters. Those 90 million Millennial eligible voters will represent just under 40 percent of America’s eligible voters.

Last November’s election was the first in which the 18- to 29-year-old age group was drawn exclusively from the Millennial generation, and they gave Obama a whopping 34-point margin, 66 percent to 32 percent. This compares to only a 9-point margin for Kerry in 2004. Behind this striking result is a deeper story of a generation with progressive views in all areas and big expectations for change that will fundamentally reshape our electorate.




This assumes non-whites and millennials remain progressive. I hope that happens, but who knows. Blacks abandoned the GOP in the 1960s and haven't come back. Latinos have been about 2-1 dem for the last 30 years (Reagan and Bush sr both lost the latino vote by about 20-30 points). W Bush made some inroad but not much, he lost latinos by about 15 points. After the rabid anti-immigrant messages of the GOP latinos are back to giving dems 30 point margins, and sometimes 40 point margins.

Another important factor to look at is the age of the tea party/fox news crowd (I am pulling these stats from memory, but they are pretty accurate). The average fox news viewer and talk radio listener is a 65-67 year old white person, usually male. So within 10 years many will be dead of old age. And by 2020 much of hte fox news audience will have passed on, replaced by millennials. So it is a 2 prong demographic trend. If 5 million of the most conservative members of the electorate die of old age and are replaced by 5 million of the most liberal, the net sum is much greater than just the 5 million new voters. Non-whites and millennials grow as a % of the electorate in part because they replace the most conservative aspects of the electorate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. I'm not sure yet, but Randi Rhodes and some of the pundits think so.

Krauthammer's piece on this, praising Obama for having "won" the debate on tax cuts, seems to have changed the debate all of the sudden.

Polls just yesterday came out suggesting that the American people are now onboard with this compromise deal.

And honestly, I'm beginning to believe that perhaps there's a larger plan. Yes, some major disappointments in the bill, but in the long run, politically, it may be the Republicans who are fooled. They now have to come back in two years and explain why the tax cuts can't be further extended, tax cuts that primarily generate the most benefit for the wealthy and increases the deficit even more. What are they going to run on? Cutting social security? That's political suicide. Cutting Medicare? That's political suicide.

All this doesn't account for the fact that the tea baggers are frothing at the mouth over the current tax cut deal that the Establishment made with Obama. They didn't want ANYTHING that is even remotely beneficial to Obama; hence, the rumblings of Palin and the outright disgusting rhetoric coming from Limbaugh. The fact that there is a divide within the Republican Party means that something isn't 100% going their way.

In the end, the Democrats will come together on this, as predicted, and unite behind this so-called compromise. I'm not sure if the Republicans will regroup so easily in the long run. They wanted tax cuts extended for the wealthy ONLY, without any additional concessions included. They didn't get what they wanted, either, which will potentially prove politically damaging in the long run.

I am becoming more convinced of this as I learn more about what exactly is in this compromise.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

88. I believe Ben Bernanke's 60 Minutes interview gave Obama unexpected help in

getting Rs to agree to a second economic stimulus, in addition to maintaning the satatus quo Bush era tax breaks. When Dubya's pick for Fed Chair says fiscal stimulus is needed, responsible Republicans listen.

Next year, after this tax-side stimuls deal passes, I believe President Obama will send the pundits into another swoon with Executive Orders for spending-side stimulus (infrasturcture, aid to struggling states and localities, green jobs programs, etc). Remember, TARP has hundreds of billions in returned and unspent funds, and some high-powered lawyers think Obama has legal authority to use those funds for the same broad purpose as TARP--easing the economic crisis. IMO, such Executive Orders well may be the centerpiece of the President's SOTU address.

Republican heads wiill EXPLODE!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

92. Today's Obama "victory lap" was intructive. The Presiden tlisted his accomplishments

during "tthe most productive post-election period in decades' and "the most productive two years in GENERATIONS".

[KansasVoter]

86. WTF.....chess shit again?

[NorthCarolina]

87. ..

:spray: :rofl:

[burning rain]

89. I hope so!

But it seems doubtful. If Democrats endorse the Bush tax cuts, they will become the Obama-Democratic tax cuts, as they will have been ratified by a Democratic congress and president. How, then, will the president or congressional Democrats be able to disown them? Especially when Republicans and their media allies will be able to point out that Democrats could have used reconciliation to pass only the lower-end and middle class tax cuts, but chose not to. I still think the president will have an edge over Palin or Romney, but one based on his own charisma and their personal liabilities: craziness and lack of reliability on core conservative issues, respectively. But that will be of no comfort to congressional Democrats.

[JCMach1]

90. it's not rope-a-dope it's 3D chess!

:sarcasm:

[Ganja Ninja]

91. Oh for Christ sakes.

:wtf: :eyes: :banghead: