And Then…Obama Talks To Dems
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Obama
For whatever reason, this talk isn’t embeddable right now, but the talk was good (you can see it here.
It certainly wasn’t as contentious as his talk with Republicans, but Obama fielded some tough questions from his own party, particular by Senators like Blanche Lincoln. She shared a story about a constituent of hers who said he doesn’t think the White House understands what it means to try and make payroll every week.
Obama responded and The Hill has more…
Obama responded by defending steps his administration has taken to right the economy and said “Moving forward, Blanche, what you’re going to hear from some folks…[is that] the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we did before the crisis.”The president reiterated that he would not return to past policies.
“If the price of certainty is for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression…the result is going to be the same.”
But Obama conceded that “Blanche is right that we sometimes get bogged down in ideology.”
Once again, Obama comes off as not only highly knowledgeable about every single topic, but also can defend why he has made the decisions he has made at every turn…something his predecessor couldn’t or wouldn’t do.
All I can say is I hope he continues these talks with both sides because this is the type of dialogue we need to see. In other words, this should be the standard, not the exception.
Fingers crossed.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:05 am
And herein lies the problem with the progressive viewpoint of our nation and our economy.
Its not a crisis. Its a recession. It happens when we use credit to purchase goods and services. Eventually you have to pay back what you borrow.
So we can go back to what we did before……WHICH ALWAYS WORKED…or we can try something new.
Okay.
What is it were trying new? Different? Other then spending the nation into bankruptcy. Expanding the size of the federal government. Thinking that a 3 trillion dollar government can provide salvation to a 100 trillion dollar economy??
The progressives are whack jobs when it comes to the economy. Our last progressive president folks….in case you all are too young to remember had…….17 percent interest rates….very high unemployment and roaring inflation.
He gave colorful speeches full of hope and change…..after a couple years of him in office he had to give a speech telling the American people to not be so depressed. Eventually his own party ignored him and began passing legislation that they felt was needed.
Thats what progressives in the White House get you as a nation. Jimmy Carter was a swell guy…..so is Barak Obama……..however he is clueless and so are the idelogues he has surrounded himself with. People who have NOT made payroll. People who have fed off the Federal TIT for their entire lives….people who think the government can solve everything.
It CANT. Period.
Period.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:24 am
@ Doomed. I think your name is appropriate. Sure, Jimmy Carter wasn’t a great president and his rhetorical flourishes are similar to our current President. Carter and Obama, while they have some similarities, are approaching governance differently. Furthermore to declare that any progressive president would fail due to that one president is silly. That would then necessitate that a republican should NEVER be elected (Nixon and Dubbya stand out to me). Clearly this isn’t the case, so your argument, while valid on some points, does not flesh out into the “doomsday” scenario that you seem to be painting. Not saying that I think Obama is perfect, but I think his fiscal policy is on sound ground- it’s just gonna be hard because we have to deal with the economy. Also, maybe it’s because I’m on the liberal end of the centrist spectrum, but I don’t think deficits are that bad right now in context of our economy. Spend money til things pick up and people have jobs. Once people are working, THEN stop government spending and put us on a sustainable track. I just think it is silly to expect a recovery without spending- particularly with the fact that business is producing the same amount with fewer workers, credit is frozen, and no one wants to take a risk. Without someone spending money, nothing is going to get better. Sadly, the only someone that can spend money is the government. But that’s just my opinion- i’m no economist.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:21 am
“Its not a crisis. Its a recession. It happens when we use credit to purchase goods and services. Eventually you have to pay back what you borrow.”
…and when you wage two unnecessary wars….and you cut taxes for the wealthy….and when you push through drug bills without paying for them…and push through education bills (NCLB) without funding ….and …and …and….
yea..progressives are real whack jobs…hahahaha
February 4th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I agree that it is good that President Obama conduct formal meetings with all the representatives and senators, from both parties. However, when it is done merely for political cover, and he doesn’t actually listen to the alternatives proposed, I’m not sure it does much good.
He can start by stopping the lies about the Republican plans, which he regularly denigrates by calling them “doing nothing” or “doing everything for free.” That could be the first step in stopping what bemoans as business as usual in Washington. He is the worst offender, pointing the finger at others.
This is a President that has done a lot of talking, and it isn’t working. How about listening to at least the moderates in his party, like Sen. Jim Webb of VA, or Evan Bayh of Indiana?
November 2010 cannot come fast enough.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I think we have an interesting 9 months to look forward to. I thought Scott Brown’s election was an anti-establishment vote, and I am seeing more and more signs of this. In this angry populist environment, I believe that Republican incumbents are no safer than democrats. Which is to say, not safe.
I don’t see any widespread coherent political viewpoint that is common among folks. Not beyond angry disappointment and perhaps even a vengeful lust to “get even.” But I think that maybe that’s OK. Even really OK. It’s pretty defensible to think we might be well-served by a wide but shallow movement that sweeps out many incumbents who are perceived as part of the problem of seeming out of touch with everyday folks.
Suppose the next congress is composed of
•)chastened veterans who have reconnected with their constituents in a meaningful way
•and rookies who have an abiding sense of why and how they got elected and what their constituent supporters expect.
That would be a good thing, right? Hopefully, the message congress will have received is that we want our reps to ignore special interests and overweening partisanship. And work with their fellow members on sensible changes.
Find some common ground and do something useful for the people, that’s the message. Rightly or wrongly, the public believes that congress has been paying way too much attention to the wrong things (like what powerful donors think, and getting re-elected).
I predict a flood of candidates who pledge not to accept big special interest money, and have great success clubbing their foes with that pledge unless they join it.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I always find it interesting that when Democrats get swept into office its for “change” and a “forward looking voter” who is voting “for the future”. When Republicans take offices Virginia and NJ, and a stunning upset for the Senate in MA, it is because of “anger” and “revenge”.
Signs are that this is a move toward more conservatism, even in places like Florida where a GOP governor, who had a 70% approval rating, has now fallen below his relatively unknown but more conservative challenger, Marco Rubio, for an open Senate seat. Polls are showing its not social issues animating the voters this time around, but fiscal issues.
The Tea Party movement is characterized by the media as being about “anger”, but it is a result of concern about fiscal issues; the Tea Partiers recognize that liberty is inextricably linked to economic freedom, and every dollar taken from us in taxes is a bit of freedom whittled away.
So yes, big spending Republicans can expect a reaction from their voters in the primaries, but I doubt you’ll see many conservative districts elect a Democrat in 2010. You will see districts go the other way.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Frank, having read your recently posted links to several Republican plans and having also read the cogent rebuttals by others here, I’m not sure where you’re getting this *political cover* story line from. If the GOP has done a lousy job of explaining their ideas who’s to blame? The liberal media again?
The same people who argue that the Dems can’t blame the GOP for a failure to legislate, also can’t blame the Dems for the idea vacuum to the right. If Obama is *lying* (a particularly questionable choice of words on your part) then that should be easy for the GOP to demonstrate.
I had hopes for moderation from your quarter but you sort of set yourself back. If you aren’t holding your party accountable, no one will. We certainly don’t need more hyperbolic partisan attacks (Lying. sheesh).
Captcha: it blurted. Tell me about it.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Jacob has a sensible understanding of the governments proper role in a deficit. Republican plans, if actually carried out would have been disastrous. A complete spending freeze? Only tax cuts for stimulus? The elite level discourse from the GOP is much like doomed. This is cycle and people without jobs need to suck it up until the economy recovers on its own.
I think rep. ryan’s budget proposal is exactly what the gop believes is the proper course for the country. privatize social security, gradually phase out meaningful medicare.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Frank, I agree that much of the current populist sentiment involves antipathy towards overspending. Fiscal conservatism or budget hawkishness or whatever you want to call it. But you can’t say there’s no anger there, that’s just silly.
And I am happy to say that the 2008 election of Obama reflected anger towards Republicans, if that makes you happy. And that voting out democrats in 2010 will be a reflection of a desire for “change.”
Maybe you’re right. We’ll see whether support for Rubio is based solely on his extra strength conservatism or not. i continue to read this as sign that fewer incumbents than usual will be safe.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
And what is the latest Republican stroke of genius? What innovative ideas are being proposed by the top Republican on the House Budget Committee? Tax cuts. More tax cuts. Turn Medicaid and Medicare over to private insurers (While undoubtedly protecting their profit margins). Turn Social Security into a private investment scheme which I assume would be as successful as my 401K has been in the recent past. Wow. How original. Religious concepts from the First Church of Free Market. Again. Leave it the corporations. They can do no wrong.
Here’s a question. If we actually did everything the Republicans proposed and it crashed and burned would they ever admit they were wrong? Or would massive increases in poverty, unemployment, homelessness and hunger count in their eyes as failure so long as corporate profits were good? Yes, that’s a serious question. Another way to phrase it is which matters more, ideology or the facts on the ground?
February 4th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Ideology, absolutely.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:29 am
There is no doubt business in this nation needs oversight. Needs regulation.
But Jim you say Obama’s policies are on sound ground.
Just what are those policies that have actually been implemented?
You see….I see NO policy. I see nothing in place that will solve this recession.
Yes Obama is hiring lots of people for the government……that is amid speculation that he is going to have to cut the deficit and cut spending.
So.
Those are not permanent jobs.
Green.
Green is great….sign me up.
Where are the jobs? The government is trying to make green jobs. BS. Now if you make it profitable for the Green industry to simply start building the infrastructure for green jobs then the industry will take off.
If you wait on the government……10 years from now we might have 500,000 new green jobs all dependent upon a government handout that might or might not continue.
You dont have to legislate and regulate the air we breath. Just make it profitable for GREEN to replace fossil fuels and it will explode into being.
Thats how America has always worked. But progressives believe they have to LEGISLATE and REGULATE everything.
They are wrong. Period.
The government cant fix everything….but they can make America conducive to serving their agenda by making it profitable to go green.
I said a while back and I remain convinced that we could cut our foreign oil use in 1/2 if we just thought differently.
Create battery cars with VERY EASY to replace battery packs. You pull into a gas station who then REPLACES your battery pack with a freshly recharged pack and your off……..cost……10 bucks for 5 minutes work.
The cities would fill up with Battery cars. Jobs would be created as gas stations would require more workers to replace these heavy battery packs…..etc.
Innovation and creation…….thats what has always made America strong………Squelching Legislation and regulation is nothing but a feel good………lets give all the money to the poor mentality that has kept this recession roaring for 2 years now.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:53 am
>>>>!!
As far as corporations and profits. Corporations exist to make a profit. IF they are not making a profit they do not exist……they do a Bear Stearns, A GMC, A CHRYSLER.
People suffer and lose jobs because the corporation cannot make a go of it because the people DO NOT WANT what they sell in sufficient quantities to make the company viable.
Now the government can prop them up but what about in 2 or 3 years when they STILL are not making a profit?
Corporations are not evil. They provide 100,000,000 jobs. They provide health care. They provide sick leave. They provide Family emmergency leave. They provide vacations and hope.
They also make a profit. The people that invest in them because they have a sound business model provide needed capital for the business to expand, make more products and hence hire more people.
Much to the chagrin of the Progressive movement Corporations are NOT evil….they are the very reason America is and fastly become WAS the predominant world force in economy.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:56 am
My above answer cut the following out of my post so let me add it here.
My answer to your questions Jim S. is this:
They most likely would not admit they were wrong but the people would vote them out, kick them out and send them a very clear message…….like Virginia, New Jersey and Mass.
Thats how our Republic works.
Massive increases in poverty, unemployment all come with recessions. It is the very nature of building an economy on credit……a promise to pay.
Think about that for a moment……the US GOVERNMENT is USING CREDIT and a PROMISE TO PAY.
Where do you think thats heading?
RECESSION for the US GOVERNMENT. A time in which they MUST PAY BACK WHAT THEY OWE.
ITS TIME>>>>>!!
February 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Well said KK – it’s not political philosophy at all right now. People just want change and the one’s in power aren’t perceived to be doing anything so they’ll bring in the other guys (no matter how poorly the other guy’s governed for the last ~30 years). “And fewer incumbents will be safe” is the perfect statement. In my opinion, every incumbent should be voted out regardless of party. After 6 years on the job in DC they barely understand why they went there to begin with. Have you seen how old so many of those senators and congressmen are? It’s like an Alzheimers conference when they are all together – and frankly a big part of the problem in government. Incumbents are always afraid of change because it upsets their gravy train, causes confusion for them, and upsets the lobbyists. There is still quite a bit of time until November – we’ll see.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I was angry both times I voted againt Bush (moreso the second time) and the one time I voted against McCain (whom I very well may have voted for in 2000 had I the chance). Hope/Change and Anger/Revenge are not mutually exclusive. I’d love to vote purely for someone and not against anyone, having to choose between two candidates I liked a lot, rather than taking the lesser of two evils, or even one good candidate over a bad one. It just doesn’t seem to happen that way. I’m lucky to find that I really like one of the candidates in most elections.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Doomed, i’m laughing directly at you right now. Wow, do you have the peasant mentality hardcore. Corporations are not evil, nor are they good. The exist to make profit, and if in order to make profit they need to do evil things THEY DO. If to make profit they do good things, then they do that too. Your diatribe about gentle big brother corporation is hilarious and disgusting. They provide benefits and vacation to try to keep employees around, not out of goodwill. Guess who else employs a huge portion of the country – THE GOVERNMENT. So what’s your point?
Take a look at a country that is capitalistic but has lax regulation, say China, for instance. Profit drives their business practices, and guess what, they don’t treat people very nice. They substitute antifreeze for sugar, and dump toxic wastes in the rivers that people drink out of. I don’t see those corporations handing out a lot of “hope”. Give me a break.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Ran across an example today, one of many that exist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast
another:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028108_Chevron_Ecuador.html
February 8th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Chris
Thats okay. Im used to being laughed at by progressives who think Corporations in America are evil and do evil things and then go to work for a corporation and collect a pay check and vacation and sick leave, and use the health care thats 90 percent paid for by that corporation and they go buy their groceries from a corporation and they buy their car from a corporation.
Then they go home and watch TV brought to you by a corporation and they go to bed and sleep in a bed built by a corporation and they awake to the alarm clock that was made by a corporation and they go drink coffee that was brought……well you get my point.
I never said corporations were good…..I simply said and you reinforced my opinion that progressives believe they are evil because as you put it….they might do evil things.
Such is life in a progressive world.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
@Chris, the troll does not eat logic or reason as they are indigestible to him. Please feed him only received opinions and red meat.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Doomed – I clearly said I don’t think corporations are evil – just that they do evil things. I also think that their business model is becoming inefficient in todays world, and is being upheld by peasants like yourself and the people at the top of the food chain who make all of the money that we spend.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
) Yes, I think we are at war. This is a war not unlike we’ve fought in Iraq, where the enemy is within our country. These agents of the enemy, many of them terrorists, have done massive damage to the US and the world economies.
2) It is highly likely Obama will spend at least and probably far more than $3 trillion to fight this war– possibly $10 trillion. Some of it will be congressionally approved, some of it will come from other means.
3) As we fight this Econwar and identify the enemy– the econterrorists and pirates– we must retroactively punish them, starting with taking back the plunder they took from companies we are now rescuing.
Yep…yep. Herein lies the mind set of the progressives.
As for me being a peasant? Well I enjoy all the things corporations bring me cause its for sure not going to be ma and pa who is going to build me a bigger and better TV or Computer or internet.
As for regulation, sure its needed….In moderation.
Its pretty plain to see by the above CUT AND PASTE from a progressive blog that moderation aint what they are talking about.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Justin cut and pasted this entry? Do you huff a lot of paint?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Lets see I huff paint.
I have a peasant mentality.
Your laughing directly at me.
I can see now why the progressives went down the drain. They simply have no clue how to interact with people they disagree with.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Well I’m glad you can come clean. I’m sure there a corporate funded centers where you can get help for your addiction.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Nothing to come clean about.
America is a nation of large and medium and small corporations. Even mom and pop form LLC’s or limited Liability Corporations to protect them from people like progressives who want to sue them, legislate them and punish them for making money.
The only one needing to come clean is the progressive movement in this country who wants to nationalize corporations. Legislate and regulate them into a certain standard of behavior which is anathema to the very foundations of America and what WE stand for and what we as a nation value.
Watch and wonder Chris…….Watch while the progressive wish list goes down the tubes as Americans soundly reject their far left and mostly radical ideals as being totally foreign to an America that offers us the highest standard of living in the world……bar none.
We are a nation that gives and gives. While the progressives hollar about helping their idealogical opposites are out actually HELPING. While progressives scream about the need to solve problems their opposites are solving them.
The progressive movement in this country is a failure. Everything it stands for is diametrically opposed to about 70 percent of the rest of Americas wants and dreams.
Flush…………goes the progressive agenda. Thanks Mass. Even LIBERALS REJECT the progressive movement.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
You are hilarious. Were you thumping your keyboard as you wrote that? Shall I spend the time to list out all of the things the progressives have done for this country that the conservatives have fought against, and still are fighting against? I’m guess it would be a waste of effort on someone as narrow as yourself.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Actually no Chris. I do not take my politics personal.
Yes there was a time when progressives were not radicals. There was a time when Progressives had some good ideas.
That time is long past.
So as the progressives go stand in the corner with their Far right radical friends the rest of us can move forward on getting things done.
Even Liberals in the Democratic party are rejecting the progressive movement as being too radical for the times.
Todays present day progressives cannot lay claim to what was in the past.
If that were true then Democrats are racists and Republicans freed the slaves……..no?
February 11th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
They did indeed, but today, if those party labels were the same then racists would be republicans and it would be the democrats “freeing the slaves”. Even though that’s a supreme simplification of history. What’s your point? The progressives haven’t changed what they stood for, as there is no “progressive party”. Your rant on progressives is as ridiculous as… well, as the rest of the garbage you write.