Zogby http://blogs.forbes.com/johnzogby/2011/07/13/gop-debt-limit-game-plan-a-dud/ says Obama won.

At least Zogby polls Obama not quite as high as the polls quoted by VOA this morning.

I think you are right Jon – 3 times in the media as a debt raiser before the election is likely to cost Obama – and I do not trust Zogby or Forbes.

Sorry, don’t agree with you on this one. I’ve read very little specifics, besides the Chained CPI on this. I believe politically, President Obama has stuck it to the Republicans by showing their incredible “we only care for the rich” philosophy. With the split and anguish coming from the other side right now, they are in a no win situation. We shall see but I see just the opposite.

This debt ceiling stand off got President Obama to publicly admit he has been pushing for cutting Social Security benefits and got the fact widely reported that he would support raising the Medicare retirement age. Republicans got Obama to go on record supporting these very unpopular cut without the GOP also needing to agree to them. I imagine the Republicans are already working “Obama support for cutting Social Security” into some really good 30 second campaign ads.

Doesn’t matter Jon. Obama can get caught eating a baby on live TV and somehow his followers will spin it as brilliant eleventy dimensional chess, by saving the baby from the mean old Republicans. Or something.

I just heard Lawrence O’Donnell basically praise Obama for this. That’s right, a so called “liberal” praising a Democratic President for proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and raising the eligibility age for Medicare. And I’ve seen plenty on line commenters swallow that bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

And I’ll bet my last penny that most every one of them lambasted GWB for lots of things, and his followers for supporting him no matter what. Now they seem to think Obama is great, no matter what.

I think these liberal hypocrites piss me off more than the conservative ones. Because I believe in my heart of hearts that the liberal ones know better, dammit.

Sad sad sad sad.

Republicans were very successfully harmed Democrats for “cutting Medicare” in 2010, I don’t see why they won’t be as effective using the same tactic to hammer Obama for “try to cut Social Security” in 2012

We could all really have a great laugh at an already paralyzed federal government if in 2012 there was a majority House and majority Senate of Democrats dealing with a President Palin.
Nothing great would really come out of it and I don’t know if that would even last 4 years…but what FUN!!!

Oops..can you believe I confused Palin with Bachmann?

Not sure about this.

I doubt the Republicans have enough cred on protecting Social Security to leverage O’s proposed sellout effectively to their advantage. All many folks will take from this months from now is GOP folds, causing infighting, leaving O to be perceived as a relatively stronger leader.

I’m with you OFG.

I stopped watching LoDo a looong time ago, bc, for me, he is the same as Rush Limbaugh for so-called “lefties.” LoDo spins forth the propoganda-lies from a sort of leftie perspective, and I guess there are sort of “leftwing” citizens who watch that jerk & “buy” what he’s selling.

It makes me tremendously angry as well, but I duly note that many of my friends who are trad-Dem voters are either completely ignorant of what Obama’s been proposing – and hence, shoot me down for telling them the TRUTH about their tin-pot “god” – or they simply don’t give a sh*t for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.

As you state, *most* of these people I know would’ve been frothing at the mouth if GW Bush did the same d*mn thing, but since it’s Obama??? Oh well… it either: a) must be “ok,” or b) the meanie Republicans *made* Obama do it, so it’s not “Obama’s fault.”

No kidding…

Jon Walker says

“If the only thing McConnell wins from the stand off after “folding” on a demand for deficit reduction, is getting Obama to publicly admit he personally pushed for cutting Social Security benefits, I’d consider that a pretty good consolation prize.”

I totally agree with you!

Everyone wants to ignore the obvious!

If I was a GOP strategist, I would be doing back flips

The GOP loves race base politics, hear you have the Black President saying he is willing to cut social security, medicare, medicade,

today Eric Cantor ask Obama to write down his entitlement cuts

If I was a GOPer I would just make the following commercial
Elderly white couple sitting around a table, crying because OBAMA cut their social security
and in the background have Obama playing basketball and laughing

OBAMA could raise 2 billion dollars and lose in 2012

People still watch Lawrence O’Donell? WOW, I only watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel

OldFatGUY? Lawrence declares he is a socialist? WOW, I fell out of my chair when I heard this. Thank God Keith is Back

the media is ignoring the FURY on the Left? because they know Hell is coming.

Obama is starting to look like some crooked black pastor, ie Eddie Long.

My African American friends say OBAMA reminds them of pastors at Mega Black Churches who rape their poor members blind. Obama is just ripping off gullible and dumb White People

It’s not clear to me how Obama will suffer if the GOPers reject the Grand Bargain. They are the party that wants to cut entitlements and that has demagogues the deficit. Now, when Obama offers the GOPers a maximialist deal, they cut and run in order to hold fast to their tax mania. But capital big and small will hold them accountable for pushing these issues to the breaking point. And Obama still wants to make a deal for his maximalist program.

I see no problem here for Obama because I consider Obama to be a class warrior in the service of the predatory capitalists. He’s just serving the interests of his monied patrons. And if he becomes a “one term president,” he’s already said that he’d rather be a one-term president than a bad president.

this maybe true but it’s risky. The repugs have to assume that the lunatic fringe that supports Bachmann and Palin won’t jump ship. Bachmann I do not think will appeal to the centrist independents and these are the people they have to win over. If Romney is their candidate, I don’t see him choosing Bachmann as a running mate. They are too far apart ideologically and with out Bachmann they loose the lunatic fringe.

Tis a puzzlement.

I believe politically, President Obama has stuck it to the Republicans by showing their incredible “we only care for the rich” philosophy.

That’s not also Obama’s philosophy?

What I don’t see discussed here — merely assumed — is the mindset that would lead Obama to take McConnell up on his offer (if in fact the Republicans actually put this play into action). For many of the reasons laid out in Jon’s posting, it seems more likely that a cunning president determined to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would find some pretext to balk at such a deal (hence the earlier threat of a veto if Obama considered any deal too paltry). If he accepted McConnell’s plan, he wouldn’t get any of those items checked off his list, but would still suffer the political consequences of having put them on the table in the first place.

There will be some other twist in this act of the Kabuki. I don’t use the term pejoratively. This has all been rather illuminating, as theater sometimes is, with regard to the way villains operate.

Well, it depends.

If you rely on his words, then NO that’s not his philosphy. He speaks eloquently of how the rich need to pay their share, and about how seniors shouldn’t carry all of the burden so millionaires can get tax breaks.

If you rely on his actions…. well he signed the OBAMA tax cuts for the wealthy (they’re Obama’s now, no longer Bush’s) and even did Bush one better for the rich; he got estate tax rates lower than at any time during the Bush Presidency.

He doesn’t need Obama to, just Congress. He’s not going to veto raising the debt ceiling.

YES!!! Finally someone nails it. The Republicans have absolutely checkmated Obama. 100%. They keep tax cuts, they force Obama to go it alone on cutting spending (Obama’s come this far in his drive to shred the safety net, he’s not going to let a little thing like the Republicans bowing out to get it done).

All Obama gets to say is “I wear big boy pants” and frankly, compared to shredding the safety net, that’s pretty weak as a campaign message, and, weak as it is, it’s not even one he can share with Congressional Democrats.

So in sum, Republicans seize two Eiffel tower sized mallets from the Democrats for the 2012 election. I know this gambit is sort of complicated, but the contours of it couldn’t be any clearer: the Democrats have nothing now. If they want to save their asses even a little bit, they’ll vote on a clean bill. But in the tug of war between Dems in Cong. and Obama, I’m betting on Obama and his Third Way pals.

I agree with these comments and add a few more. President Obama has stated that he would “OFFER” difficult cuts and changes asked by the Republicans as long as they agree to add revenue (not taxes) to the mix, e.g. subsidies and loophole to major corporations, military spending, etc.

I can “OFFER” you my house to live in if you pay my mortgage, but will you do it? He has not “GIVEN” cuts and they continue to support the revenue mix. NO CHANGE and NO SLOGAN!

That presupposes a world wherein Obama would be okay walking away without having slashed entitlements. That world doesn’t exist. Obama needs to do two things: 1. to cut entitlements (beltway cred/wall st. camp. cash) 2. to get Republican skin on the spending cuts.

He’s not getting #2, so he looks like the kleptocrat that he is, with no cover.

The Rich aren’t going to let Obama levy a single dollar of new tax on them.

No matter what.

One other point that perhaps should be made. If Obama doesn’t really want a clean up or down vote on raising the debt limit, because that would undo his stab at a “shock doctrine” moment with regard to entitlements, the Tea Party GOPers who hate McConnell’s plan become Obama’s greatest allies.

This makes a lot more sense than the “McConnell Caves-Obama Wins” fantasy that has been making the rounds of the blogs and some cable teevee outlets.

Yes you must keep in mind what McConnell “lost”. He just agreed to raise the debt ceiling like it has been dozens of times before, but now Obama is solely responsible for taking a vote no member of Congress wants to.

No question. It will be spending cuts–probably big ones (in for a penny in for a pound)–and ZERO revenue. The Republicans have seized 2012.

Passing the Affordable Care Act caused an epically protracted battle of disinformation and sheer stupidity containing everything from popularly held notions of death panels to armies of IRS enforcement agents. The amount of fear and ignorance demonstrated by the American people in that debate rivaled that of the run-up to the Iraq War, and the majority of voters are still fundamentally confused. That’s a pathetic indictment indeed, but O’s intentionally vague social security cuts saw daylight maybe four days before the Republicans suffered a very public and humiliating meltdown.

The dynamics of the specific, individual Presidential matchup are also different than for House incumbents. Obama v. GOP Candidate X leaves O a hell of lot less vulnerable to perceptions on relative positions on Social Security among the national electorate than the Blue Dogs who got booted from their swing districts last November.

He already a bad President that ship have sailed. He needed to do just a little more work on his one term-er credentials.

People have been programmed to believe that Obama and his technocrat buddies are smarter. Horsecrap.

Why is Obama threatening to veto any short-term debt-limit fix that the Congress passes (as Glenn Greenwald documents today that he did)? What’s the rationale for that?

Doesn’t that give the congressional Republicans an easy way to foist the blame for a U.S. default on Obama and/or the Senate Democrats?

The rich need to study what this kind of tax obstructionism by the nobility in France led to for them from 1789 to 1793.

If you rely on his words, then NO that’s not his philosphy.

Really? Didn’t Obama say somewhere that he wanted to complete Reagan’s legacy? And didn’t Obama say just before his inauguration that he wanted a major “entitlements reform,” after which he promptly appointed the Catfood Commission?

Jus’ sayin’.

Yes, I understand that Obama is unlikely to veto McConnell’s plan, should Congress go with it. But when I spoke of Obama not accepting the plan, I was of course referring to his making sure that things don’t get to the point where he would be put on the spot by such a bill. Hence my reference to his finding some “pretext,” and my later comment that the Tea Party fringe is perhaps Obama’s greatest ally with regard to the McConnell plan.

This is the political equivalent of letting go the rope in tug-of-war. Now every Democrat ass is up in the breeze.

The White House’s silence on this issue is fairly telling. I’m guessing there’s a rift among his tacticians about how to approach.

I just don’t see how Obama can cut the social security payroll tax by two percent and then turn around and claim that benefits need to be cut because he wants to “strengthen” the program.

He trims funding for a program supposedly in trouble and than claims he needs to trim benefits to strengthen it.

How can it look like anything except someone out to kill a program?

It’s also possible that some people call themselves “liberals” or “progressives” but really are just followers who go along with the crowd. They really aren’t sure what they actually believe but wait for someone else to tell them what to believe.

It doesn’t matter to Obama. People also ask “how can Obama support a deal without raising taxes on the wealthy?” Because he’s a single-minded austerity hawk–he’s not a deficit hawk, he’s an austerity hawk. We’re the frog, and he’s the scorpion. Understand that, and all the pieces fall into place.

Of course you might be slightly misquoting you Blacks friend. To be a member of a mega church its not all smoking mirrors. So please do not conflate the two. The seat of power in the Black Communities are and still is the Church. People go to these places for a sense of community and redemption.No he is not that hypocrite Eddie Long. Just because he have good oratory skills,he is no king or Eddie Long. He is just another corrupt politician who has a Nobel Peace Prize layaway. As my sister has said who is 70 years old,”I hope this fool do not think I going to vote for him sense he tried to cut Social Security and Medicare”.

Nancy Pelosi has tested the wind, and see it is not blowing toward OBAMA

Nancy may bend over again, but she knows that would end her bid to be the speaker of the house again
link Below NANCY goes hard Left on OBAMA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×4918843

“As my sister has said who is 70 years old,”I hope this fool do not think I going to vote for him sense he tried to cut Social Security and Medicare”.

what your sister said is being repeated all over the USA, this is why I am scratching my head all the time, what was OBAMA thinking?

All I can come up with is maybe OBAMA wants to lose in 2012, because 1 way to guarantee losing in 2012 is to say you are willing to cut Social Security

Eric Cantor asked Obama to write down his plan cuts to entitlements.

I don’t see how Obama wins in 2012 with out elderly votes?

Nancy’s a noble roman. The best, in fact.

“Nancy, as soon as we’re done with this debt ceiling issue, I PROMISE we’ll get on that EFCA….”

I agree. That SSI “holiday” tax cut was the stalking horse in his bigger plan to kill or privatize SSI and then medicare. He’s a CORPORATIST and wants to sell off or should I say auction off the non-Military side of the Gov’t to his Corp. clients, just as the GOP does. They only hate him because they want the graft he’s going to get.

Yes, and Obama has been able to maintain the Bush matched set: The OBAMA tax cuts for the rich go so well with the OBAMA wars.

And boomer voters like me. We’re trying to plan our retirement – good luck with that! It’s hard for a bargaining chip to plan.

Late to the discussion, but I agree with Jon on this one.
McConnell’s move is a retreat but a brilliant one in that:

–it gives the R’s real owners what they want: lifting the debt ceiling and no taxes
–it denies Obama the “big win” on the “Grand Bargain” he was seeking
–it puts Obama solely on the hook for raising the debt ceiling — three times
–it puts Obama on the hook for proposing spending reductions in a recession
–it drags out the discussion through the 2012 budget on to the election
–it gives the recalcitrant Rs a way to vote against raising the debt ceiling
–it exposes Obama’s desire — indeed his perverse need — to cut Medicare and SS

If that’s a defeat, I’d hate to see a victory.

It’s also a win for progressives, by the way — because it’s a defeat for Obama.

Personally, I think O’s offering up of Social Security was the gravest betrayal of the trust of the American people by an Democratic President since LBJ ginned up the Vietnam War. I’m willing to walk that one back, but I can’t think of a more grievous sellout in 40 years. I’d endorse a primary challenge to O on that basis alone. However, if the subject is politics rather than policy, I’m amazed I’ve seen so many well-argued positions explaining why this will prove a political net loss, but falsely assuming any of that will resonate with the average voter.

Mitt Romney is going to be GOP nominee. Its his “turn”. The GOP king-makers will soon confirm this is likely a lost cycle to them, so they might as well at least dispense with the Mormon’s Presidential aspirations. How is Mitt Romney going to leverage O’s craven capitulation to Mittens’ relative advantage on this specific issue? Why would he even go there? Romney is on the record as having proposed, privatization, raising the retirement age, and phasing out Social Security completely for younger workers.

”We’re going to have to sit down with the Democrats and say, let’s have a compromise on these three elements that could get us to bring Social Security into economic balance. You can have personal accounts where people can invest in something that does better than government bonds–with some portion of their Social Security. We’re going to have the initial benefit calculations for wealthier Americans calculated based on the Consumer Price Index rather than the wage index. That saves almost two-thirds of the shortfall. You can change the retirement age. You can push it out a little bit.”
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

“In a campaign appearance, Romney expressed support for replacing some of Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with privatized accounts. He also suggested as cost-saving measures raising the retirement age and changing the way Social Security is adjusted for inflation.” – Union Leader, 6/7/2007.

“Romney wants to reform programs such as Social Security and Medicare but has not promised to preserve benefits. ‘I don’t want to add entitlements,’ he says, ‘I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.’” – Boston Globe, 1/27/2006.

“(Romney) is weighing…. deep cuts in automatic-benefits programs such as Medicare and Social Security…. Romney aides say he is intrigued by the ideas of Democrat Robert Posen who served on Bush’s 2001 Social Security Commission. Posen’s plan calls for ‘progressive indexation’ that maintains the current Social Security benefit formula for the poor while providing gradual benefit reductions for wealthier individuals.” – Bloomberg, 2/7/2007.

“Romney.. says its time to reform the two major ‘entitlement’ programs in America: Social Security and Medicare, government-paid health care insurance for the elderly… Romney said the solution should ‘make sure that we honor the expectations’ of those who are already getting Social Security and those who are about to get regular Social Security checks from the government, while at the same time ensuring the system will be solvent when the 30-and 40-year-olds of today reach retirement age.” – Radio Iowa, 8/25/06.
http://www.massaflcio.org/romney-retirement

A similar record will be available on any GOP candidate. In a 1 x1 matchup spanning many months, how could any of them use O’s actual record on Social Security, which likely will remain unchanged after four years of his Presidency, against him in any meaningful way while simultaneously defending their more unpopular but well-established positions? I will never forgive the man for what he has done, but this is not going to cost him re-election.

Obama told his Congressional Republican negotiating partners that they have his final offer and he will not budge from it even if he destroys his political career because of it. I’ve put the link to the report here.

Does the term “spectacularly stupid” begin to describe Obama’s political ineptitude? He has agreed to put tens of millions of American’s on the chopping block by cutting Social Security and Medicare in exchange for eliminating a few paltry tax loopholes.

The Republicans are going to have a field day.

Why is Obama so stubbornly opposed to short-term fixes?

All Obama gets to say is “I wear big boy pants” and frankly, compared to shredding the safety net, that’s pretty weak as a campaign message, and, weak as it is, it’s not even one he can share with Congressional Democrats.

Has anyone surveyed incumbent Democratic Reps & Senators to see how they feel about having this loser be the “face of the Democratic party,” the one defining what it means to be a Democrat?