Has History Passed Obama By?

[PJABBER]

In the aftermath of this election, with a lame duck session of the One Party Congress still to come, we are left wondering - what comes next?

To this point, the Dems have not had to compromise on anything with the Republicans. Win or fail, and they did fail to deliver what the American people thought was most important, they did it their way.

But the problems that the Dem's profligate spending accelerated almost beyond comprehension are still there, even as the Dems are now slowly being stripped of their powers to inflict greater damage.

R or D, the nation cannot sustain the course it has been set on. Hard choices are coming and they are coming fast.

Based on the results of the elections, the Congress can likely cobble together a Republican led coalition of the fiscal conservatives from each party in both the House and in the Senate. However, such a coalition will face the veto power of the White House, and that is where the future of the country is going to rest.

This most spendthrift of Presidents is going to be faced with proposal after proposal to cut costs and reduce the size of the government that he has more faith in than any other institution. He will be presented with legislation to reduce the entitlement programs that he believes are the foundation of electoral success for his Party. He is going to face unpleasantly lean budgets that trim everywhere.

If he doesn't sign off on massive reductions in the size of government and the entitlements that have draining the national treasury, he will bring on economic collapse. If he does, he will alienate the myriad of constituencies used to or dependent on those entitlements. It is a lose-lose scenario.

It is too early to tell whether Obama is man enough to be the deficit hawk that is required. By no stretch of our imagination can we expect that he will go there willingly.

In fact, the choices may be so hard for him to take that he will pick up his marbles and go home in 2012.

Has History Passed Obama By?

By Pat Buchanan

11/5/2010

Barack Obama's dream of being a transformational president who alters the course of his country died 48 hours ago.

The message America sent Obama and the men and women America sent to Congress to replace his allies impel one to ask: Why would he want a second term?

Why would the most liberal president since FDR wish to preside over the major surgery on the social safety net that must be done in the era of austerity we have entered? The liberal hour is over. Why would the Party of Government not prefer that Republicans do the painful work of paring back programs for which Democrats have fought since the New Deal?

The media have begun a drumbeat to demand that the new speaker, John Boehner, compromise with Obama for the good of the country.

Are these people delusional?

Republicans were brought to power because they were the Party of No. Boehner takes the gavel from Nancy Pelosi because he led the fight to kill the Obama stimulus, Obamacare, card check, amnesty, cap-and-trade and Barney Frank's financial reform.

Boehner's beliefs are closer to the Tea Party than to Obama. He owes his speakership to the Tea Party. His political interests dictate allying with the Tea Party and moving even further away from Obama.

Why would Boehner lead his caucus into a suicide pact with Obama when, in Boehner's eyes, the national interest and his own interests point in the other direction?

The left has yet to grasp that the nation has repudiating it as well as Obama. America has shifted to the right, which again raises the question of Obama's relevance.

Why would our most liberal president since FDR want to lead the nation into an age of austerity?

Here is retiring GOP Sen. Judd Gregg, the fiscal conservative that Barack Obama most wanted in his Cabinet.

"This nation is on a course where if we don't ... get ... fiscal policy (under control), we're Greece. We're a banana republic."

"(T)he Tea Party is in the mainstream of where political thought is right now," said Gregg. "We've had a radical explosion in the size of government in the last two years: You've gone from 20 percent of GDP to 24 percent of GDP headed toward 28 percent of GDP. That has to be brought under control or ... we're going to bankrupt the country."

Conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers all agree with Gregg.

But how does Obama, whose deficits have added more to the debt in two years than Bush added in eight, convert and become a deficit hawk?

Consider Social Security, which all agree must be made solvent.

There are two ways. One is to raise the wage base on which Social Security taxes are imposed and raise the 6.2 percent payroll tax on both employers and employees. But these are major tax increases. And the GOP and Tea Party will fix bayonets to fight them.

The other way is to raise the retirement age to 70 and re-index Social Security COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments) to prices, not wages, reducing future benefits for baby boomers and generations X and Y.

Will Pelosi's battered liberals go along with reducing Social Security benefits if Obama proposes it? Or would that tear what is left of his tattered coalition to pieces?

To cut spending to 20 percent of GDP from 24 would require annual slashes of $600 billion, eliminating a sixth of the budget.

Will Democrats go along with that magnitude of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, earned income tax credits, infrastructure, Pell grants and welfare?

Will Republicans go along with cuts of that size for the Iraq and Afghan wars, new weapons systems, closing of bases and withdrawal of troops from Korea, Japan or Europe? To get 4 percent of GDP out of defense would require putting the Pentagon on furlough.

Bottom line: The new Republican House has the numbers and will to block new taxes and fund both wars and the rising defense budget. And the president has the veto power to block severe cuts in social programs, which his bloodied forces will demand that he do.

Were this a parliamentary system, Obama would be out of power, as the nation voted to reject his party and reverse the course of the country.

In Britain, under Prime Minister David Cameron, the austerity the people voted for is being imposed. In Virginia and New Jersey, where Govs. Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie were elected in 2009 to change the direction of state government, this is happening.

In Washington, however, where Obama's agenda and party were repudiated by the nation, they still retain the power to prevent the nation from going where America voted to go.

The center has disintegrated. The result: a deadlock of democracy, with neither party responsible and neither accountable, as we drift toward the falls.

Greece, here we come.

 

[Craig234]

No, no it hasn't. Obama has been far better than the alternative would be, and he has gotten a lot of good, basic legislation passed, even if he's not the 'historic' president one like FDR was - or I'd argue JFK, even though Obama's legislative achievments rival if not surpass JFK's. Pat Buchanan isn't someone I think needs to be read much, so I'll give his predictable propaganda a pass.

 

[PJABBER]

No, no it hasn't. Obama has been far better than the alternative would be, and he has gotten a lot of good, basic legislation passed, even if he's not the 'historic' president one like FDR was - or I'd argue JFK, even though Obama's legislative achievments rival if not surpass JFK's. Pat Buchanan isn't someone I think needs to be read much, so I'll give his predictable propaganda a pass.

The programs that were passed did nothing to improve the economic viability of the country. My guess is that they will eventually be repealed and other, more efficient, approaches will be tried.

Obama will be remembered for his failed experiment in socialism. Unless the country undergoes an economic collapse due to his sticking to his failed ideologies, in which case he will be remembered for a whole lot more.

 

[Red Dawn]

If he will have failed at anything it's trying to recover from the mess your bitch, GW, left us with. It's not looking too good at the moment but then it would have taken a Messiah to do it and obviously Obama's just a man.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He will be known as Jimmy Carter's savior.

 

[Red Dawn]

He will be known as Jimmy Carter's savior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If he will have failed at anything it's trying to recover from the mess your bitch, GW, left us with. It's not looking too good at the moment but then it would have taken a Messiah to do it and obviously Obama's just a man.

Bush screwed the pooch, but Obama misread the situation and assumed that whatever he wanted would automatically be seen as beneficial. From one of his latest interviews he seemed to not understand that communication with the public is necessary and not just "we need to change how things are done". He also decided to pursue his agenda as he, not the people wanted. He put health care as THE priority when the public really wanted jobs. The emphasis was all wrong. Too much of what people didn't want and without connecting with the people. It was his opportunity, but he committed the sin of most DC types, hubris.

Can he recover? Who knows?

 

[theeedude]

He'll recover, courtesy of the "Do Nothing House."
Just like Obama may have focused on reform over jobs, GOP is going to focus on gridlock over jobs. If Obama refocuses on jobs, and GOP is too focused on refighting health care and causing gridlock, he'll be in good shape for 2012.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Oh look, another wall of text by a someone other then blabber, who then cuts and pastes it in to a post here.

I mean really, do you ever post your own thoughts, or do you just post whatever others tell you? Has anyone figured out if he is getting paid to promote all these blog posts?

 

[Zebo]

The right needs to cut the bullshit.

The left did not show and is unmotivated because after sweeping him in with a huge mandate on promises end ending back room deals and politics as usual he went immediately to the back room. The left is dispirited.

The right makes shit up about him well, because he's a democrat, duh. Ther're all socialist, anti American, commie lovers.

The vast middle it's a fucked economy that's desperate to try anything new.

 

[manimal]

The programs that were passed did nothing to improve the economic viability of the country. My guess is that they will eventually be repealed and other, more efficient, approaches will be tried.

Obama will be remembered for his failed experiment in socialism. Unless the country undergoes an economic collapse due to his sticking to his failed ideologies, in which he will be remembered for a whole lot more.

Parrot wants a cracker?


Did a democrat take your ice cream when you were little?

 

[RbSX]

Jeeze guys it's been 4 days since the midterms give it a rest

 

[Zebo]

Greece, here we come.

This is assured. Seems we want our cake and eat it too. At least Germany has high taxes a high export economy thus a high tax base and can feed Europe, Greece and themselves. We'd rather pay people to sit at home and pay people in China to build our iphones and not tax the people making all the money off this arrangement.

 

[PJABBER]

He'll recover, courtesy of the "Do Nothing House."
Just like Obama may have focused on reform over jobs, GOP is going to focus on gridlock over jobs. If Obama refocuses on jobs, and GOP is too focused on refighting health care and causing gridlock, he'll be in good shape for 2012.

I'm expecting something different will occur.

Looking at the configuration of the Senate next year we have not only the newly resurgent Republicans but also some very conservative Democrats and at least one Independent that will go with a fiscally conservative agenda. That brings it to at least parity and maybe even a vote or two or three over in the Senate for the right legislation. And a large majority sending conservative, roll back legislation forward from the House.

Those Dems left in office have seen the results of this year's election. Don't think this inspires them to take a hard line for Big Government or in support of an Obama that did not do anything for any Democrat's election effort in 2010.

So, there will be legislation passing the Congress and it will go to Obama. The question is, will he hold his nose and sign or will he veto?

With conservative and budget reducing bill after bill going forward and dying at his desk, how many times will he be able to veto before there is a hue and cry from the electorate? If he goes this course, his current approval ratings will be down around the hardcore 20% and no more, guaranteeing he won't be able to pull any weight for the Dems again come 2012.

The point of the OP is that the author believes that Obama does not have the cojones to be a fiscally conservative President, to take the hard required measures that the Congress is likely to send his way. Ego, hubris and an antithetical ideology will have him trying to do more of the same as the last two years, but the next two years will have him at a major, maybe insurmountable, disadvantage.

And then will come 2012. A hard core Republican challenge for the White House for sure, with redistricting almost guaranteeing an increase in the Republican contingent in the House and very likely a substantial increase in the Senate as almost all the seats that are going to be up are the Dems' to defend.

The OP's question is, why should he bother at this point? His time has come and gone. He might as well start lobbying for the job of UN President, where he can preside over that motley collection of centrally planned economies.

 

[jman19]

Another day, another PBlabber wall of text from a right wing blog/news site.

 

[Red Dawn]

Can he recover? Who knows?

If the economy recovers he'll recover.

 

[manimal]

If the economy recovers he'll recover.

Dont use logic thats what elitists do..

 

[Zebo]

If the economy recovers he'll recover.

Red Gets it.

 

[PJABBER]

Another day, another PBlabber wall of text from a right wing blog/news site.

Did you know The Huffington Post, Ariana's blog site, was put together and financed by Andrew Breitbart? :awe:

 

[Red Dawn]

Did you know The Huffington Post, Ariana's blog site, was put together and financed by Andrew Breitbart? :awe:

And we should care why?

 

[manimal]

Did you know The Huffington Post, Ariana's blog site, was put together and financed by Andrew Breitbart? :awe:

Did you know Frank Lunz tells you what to think?

 

[PJABBER]

And we should care why?

Originally Posted by jman19
Another day, another PBlabber wall of text from a right wing blog/news site.

For all the criticisms of who posts or publishes the stories I refer to, does anyone here know who is really behind them, profiting, always profiting?

I mean, I can pick stuff up off HP or DK or TH or RCP or any of them, find the same commentators and the same news stories and make the same point. So why don't the posters here spend less time attacking the publishers who post or print the articles and more time considering the actual articles the authors write in these OPs? :whiste:

 

[RbSX]

I'm expecting something different will occur.

Looking at the configuration of the Senate next year we have not only the newly resurgent Republicans but also some very conservative Democrats and at least one Independent that will go with a fiscally conservative agenda. That brings it to at least parity and maybe even a vote or two or three over in the Senate for the right legislation. And a large majority sending conservative, roll back legislation forward from the House.

Those Dems left in office have seen the results of this year's election. Don't think this inspires them to take a hard line for Big Government or in support of an Obama that did not do anything for any Democrat's election effort in 2010.

So, there will be legislation passing the Congress and it will go to Obama. The question is, will he hold his nose and sign or will he veto?

With conservative and budget reducing bill after bill going forward and dying at his desk, how many times will he be able to veto before there is a hue and cry from the electorate? If he goes this course, his current approval ratings will be down around the hardcore 20% and no more, guaranteeing he won't be able to pull any weight for the Dems again come 2012.

The point of the OP is that the author believes that Obama does not have the cojones to be a fiscally conservative President, to take the hard required measures that the Congress is likely to send his way. Ego, hubris and an antithetical ideology will have him trying to do more of the same as the last two years, but the next two years will have him at a major, maybe insurmountable, disadvantage.

And then will come 2012. A hard core Republican challenge for the White House for sure, with redistricting almost guaranteeing an increase in the Republican contingent in the House and very likely a substantial increase in the Senate as almost all the seats that are going to be up are the Dems' to defend.

The OP's question is, why should he bother at this point? His time has come and gone. He might as well start lobbying for the job of UN President, where he can preside over that motley collection of centrally planned economies.

A fiscally conservative agenda doesn't change the fact that the USA has gotten VERY lazy, and it's this mentality, if nothing else, that will bring the USA down.

Seriously, the kids coming out of high school are down right embarrassing, and to think that that is the future? Disgusting. The same kids that are known as the Facebook-Generation will be responsible for sustaining the country.

They can't even tie their own shoes!

 

[PJABBER]

Did you know Frank Lunz tells you what to think?

I don't even know who Frank Lunz is. I looked him up and he runs focus groups. Is he supposed to be important in some way that is not identified in the Wiki bio?

 

[theeedude]

If GOP thinks that sending Obama a bill to slash Social Security or Medicare is going to hurt him more for vetoing it than them for voting for it, they are more than welcome to try.