Winning The Future!

[oladub]

In other words, it's oddly similar to the perennial GOP plan of pursuing votes in poor, uneducated, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern Bible-thumping states and ignoring anyone black, Hispanic, or college-educated.

"Basically, their strategy calls for Obama's re-election campaign to focus on holding the white college graduates who supported him in 2008 and forgetting about going after the white working class voters."

How does your dreary explanation explain going after white college graduates? They aren't less white than "poor, uneducated, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern Bible-thump"ers. Another way to look at the strategy is that combining a white elite with downtrodden minorities is that the strategy attempts to duplicate the old plantation economy of the deep south. Question is; why would "poor, uneducated, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern Bible-thump"ers", not to mention Catholic Reagan Democrats,want to support such that coalition?

[ghettopalmetto]

"Basically, their strategy calls for Obama's re-election campaign to focus on holding the white college graduates who supported him in 2008 and forgetting about going after the white working class voters."

How does your dreary explanation explain going after white college graduates? They aren't less white than "poor, uneducated, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern Bible-thump"ers.

Instead of making this an issue of "whiteness", maybe you should pay more attention to the words "COLLEGE EDUCATED". Just a thought.

Another way to look at the strategy is that combining a white elite with downtrodden minorities is that the strategy attempts to duplicate the old plantation economy of the deep south.

Yeah. Because the state GOPs in the Deep South haven't been preserving their plantation caste system at-all-costs since 1863. It's certainly Obama's fault, isn't it?

[firstandten]

President Obama is throwing this opening salvo to the senate Repubs which will surely affect both's re-election.

The payroll tax holiday is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The president wants to extend it . Normally the Repubs would be all over this and have in the past but they are against it... why ? because it would be funded with a tax increase on the 1%

But more importantly they would get on the wrong side of Grover Norquist for backing off their pledge of never raising taxes especially on the 1%. Grover has made it known that any Repub backing off their pledge of NEVER ever raising taxes can expect a primary challenge. Grover has the clout to make sure that happens.

How ever if the payroll tax cut ends at the end of the year, President Obama will make sure the public remembers why it happen, and I sure the public will make its frustration known at the polls later in the year.

[rb336]

But more importantly they would get on the wrong side of Grover Norquist for backing off their pledge of never raising taxes especially on the 1%. Grover has made it known that any Repub backing off their pledge of NEVER ever raising taxes can expect a primary challenge. Grover has the clout to make sure that happens.

And, of course, in typical newspeak, Grover has stated that letting this payroll tax expire isn't raising taxes, in exactly the opposite way allowing dubya's tax give away is

[oladub]

There's nothing wrong with President Obama wanting to reduce taxes on the middle class as long as he also cuts spending. He shouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich though.

[firstandten]

There's nothing wrong with President Obama wanting to reduce taxes on the middle class as long as he also cuts spending. He shouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich though.

I don't think President Obama would have problems with spending cuts but the Repubs want to fund the entire payroll tax cut thru spending cuts and have the increase taxes on the 1% off the table.

In a perfect world the president wouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts. However in DC its all about leverage and if you have it. In this case he didn't and he had to extend the Bush's tax cuts to get what he wanted.

[oladub]

In a perfect world the president wouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts. However in DC its all about leverage and if you have it. In this case he didn't and he had to extend the Bush's tax cuts to get what he wanted.

What President Obama leveraged was $40B to extend unemployment compensation for six months or, if continued, at the rate of $80B/year. Had he instead resumed the taxes on the rich, government revenue would have increased $450B/year. I don't think he really wanted to resume the higher tax rate on the rich because it would of paid for the extended unemployment with a $370/B year surplus. Either that or the President is really bad at math.

[firstandten]

What President Obama leveraged was $40B to extend unemployment compensation for six months or, if continued, at the rate of $80B/year. Had he instead resumed the taxes on the rich, government revenue would have increased $450B/year. I don't think he really wanted to resume the higher tax rate on the rich because it would of paid for the extended unemployment with a $370/B year surplus. Either that or the President is really bad at math.

If the President had let the tax cuts expire without special wording for the 1percenters it would have been for everybody defeating the purpose of extended unemployment benefits. The president never wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire except for the persons in the upper income brackets.

[oladub]

If the President had let the tax cuts expire without special wording for the 1percenters it would have been for everybody defeating the purpose of extended unemployment benefits. The president never wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire except for the persons in the upper income brackets.

You seem to be going to great lengths to defend the President's decision to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Had he let them expire, government revenue would have increased $450B/year. Extended unemployment benefits, not a federally delegated power anyway, were only $80B. Specifically, what other parts of this temporary Bush tax cut plan are you referring to and how much did they cost, or bring in, per year? How come you are siding with Bush and I'm for taxing the rich this morning?

[rb336]

I don't think he really wanted to resume the higher tax rate on the rich.

TADA!!!! there you have it -- Obama IS a moderate republican

[firstandten]

TADA!!!! there you have it -- Obama IS a moderate republican

Remember Obama has never claimed to be a progressive. The statement he made in one of his books is he is a Dem that leans left. Of course how far left he actually leans is subject to argument.

[rb336]

He has to lean left just to get to the middle.

[firstandten]

You seem to be going to great lengths to defend the President's decision to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Had he let them expire, government revenue would have increased $450B/year. Extended unemployment benefits, not a federally delegated power anyway, were only $80B. Specifically, what other parts of this temporary Bush tax cut plan are you referring to and how much did they cost, or bring in, per year? How come you are siding with Bush and I'm for taxing the rich this morning?

Where did your numbers come from ?

What the president got from this compromise was 1) One year additional of unemployment benefits, 2) One year reduction of SS taxes which put 2% of pay back into workers checks 3) kept the current tax rates for couples earning less than $250k.

He went on the record as opposing the tax cuts for the high end earners and said after the two year extension he will try again to get the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy repealed

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future" - While Hoping the Electorate Forgets the Past

The Obama Presidency By the Numbers [full size]:

[old guy]

Cute graphic. I'd like to see an 11 year graph that also shows how two un-funded wars jogs peoples memories.

[firstandten]

Yeah, I kinda like that graphic as well. Let's just take a snap shot picture of the economy just as the bubble was bursting and then contrast it with today and guess what. The numbers will look bad no matter who is sitting in the WH.

[Danny]

Unless we put away our dogmas, winning the future for mankind will be a losing one.

[TKshreve]

Another installment of "Spinning the Future" with your special guest host, MikeG!

What's great is that your graph shows unemployment headed down. Man, that must really chap your britches.

And also love the average single family home value. I mean, how can you not see that Obama popped the housing bubble. The facts are right there.

And the whole gallon of gas section is obviously skewed. Forget about it!

[Mikeg]

Come on, "oldguy" and "first and ten" - you're trying to change the subject!

Obama's hoping that everyone forgets his past comments and promises and his inability to deliver on them. You know as well as I do that nobody put a gun to Obama's head and made him say the following:

“One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. . . And a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” Feb. 2, 2009

"We'll work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year!" Sept. 6, 2008

Here's some long term data to jog your memory about how much better the employment situation was prior to Obama and how there has been absolutely no recovery on his watch. If Obama is really all about "Winning the Future" he better get started with reversing his policies that keep employment from improving.

Percent of population employed:

Attachment 11498


Average number of weeks unemployed:

Attachment 11499

[source: Bureau of Labor Statistics]

[firstandten]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but lets look at the totality of Obama's promise to lower premiums by $2,500

1) There was a 9% increase in premiums from 2010 to 2011 which the Repubs blamed on Obamacare. The law which has yet to be fully implemented has caused only a 1 to 3 percent increase in premiums, the rest is due to higher health care cost.
And the 1 to 3 percent increase is caused by the benefits that were put in right away:
1) Cover preventative care without co-pays or deductables
2) Allowing adult children to stay on parents policy until age 26
3) Increase annual coverage limits
4) Cover children without regard for pre-existing conditions

Fact check. org

According to independent experts from the website the 1 to 3 percent increase was modest considering the four areas mentioned. So if you want to hammer the president on a $2,500 reduced premium promise then that's fair.

As far as being a one-term president that can still happen, the election is about 11 months off a lot can happen. But the thing one must ask is there a Repub out there that has a vision better than what we have. All they have is the same warmed over supply-side BS that we know doesn't work. The american public thinks they can have the benefits of a social safety net and not deal with the cost.

As far as your graphs and charts are concerned its pretty disingenuous to show me how great the economy was going from 2000-2008 knowing that the Repubs created a bubble to keep the economy going until in 2008 it could no longer sustain itself, then show me how screwed up the economy is after 2008 and blame it on Obama's policies.

[firstandten]

As we enter into the 2012 election cycle this might be a good article to reference. The claims and promises bantered about will make your head spin especially among the Repubs. The stuff they will throw out will be so bad you will think we are playing a game of " heads I win.. tails you lose" which is the classic having your cake and eating it too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...a8vP_blog.html

[firstandten]

Now that we know Romney is going to be the guy on the Repubs side, I am real interested in how his team is going to run this campaign. I know that both Obama's and Romney's super-pac's are flush with money and the negative ads are going to be hard to take as we move to election day. I think the negative ads will be so bad that we will finally start to talk seriously about campaign finance reform after this election.

I believe that Romney will vet a legitimate VP unlike McClain to make a run at Biden.

Romney's problem will be that he needs to craft a vision of America that is better than what we have now. Its not enough to just bad mouth Obama's policies, but he needs to show how his policies will be better. Problem is, he has to at least economically go from the same Repub playbook that got us into this mess in the first place.

The other policy areas such as health care and foreign policy Romney can't take the high ground because he will be looked at either as a hypocrite or he wouldn't do anything that Obama hasn't already done.

So basically that leaves Romney with the economy and like I stated before there are problems with him attacking Obama in that area as well.

Lately it looks like Obama's campaign has gone on the offensive against Romney which is unusual for a Dem. To me it looks like Obama is trying to keep Romney from going back to the middle, which we all knew Romney was going to need to do. He is trying to make Romney pay a price for going so far to the right in order to get the nomination.

On another note I believe Biden's support of gay marriage on the sunday talk shows was a run-it-up-the-flagpole and see what happens statement before Obama comes out in flavor of gay marriage and possibly make it part of his domestic policy.

[rb336]

On another note I believe Biden's support of gay marriage on the sunday talk shows was a run-it-up-the-flagpole and see what happens statement before Obama comes out in flavor of gay marriage and possibly make it part of his domestic policy.

I seriously doubt they will have it in the platform. It would do them no good and it might well bring out the haters who otherwise couldn't bring themselves to vote for Mitt

[firstandten]

Obama is the ultimate pragmatist, so I tend to agree. I don't think the feedback from Biden's statement was great enough to make him change his present stance.

[TKshreve]

Romney takes credit for the auto bailouts:

http://www.freep.com/article/2012050...dustry-success


Wow, the moxie of this guy. I don't only hope he loses in the election in a landslide, but I hope the Obama campaign surfaces every dirty skeleton he is hiding in his closet.

For a guy who preaches freedom and pride of country, it's funny [[and borderline treason) that he tucks his millions of dollars away in the Cayman Islands instead of using it to "create jobs". Practice what you preach $hi+bag.

I also hate the attack ads with a burning passion. Really, as much mud as Romney plans on slinging, I have to admit it will be somewhat amusing to see all the different things that Obama uses to rebuke this guy. Mitty has no shortage of soft targets.