22 thoughts on “End the Shutdown: White House Weekly Address”

  2. I don’t want to see any changes to medicare, social security or any portion of the safety net that will open the door to chipping away at these programs. You can believe what you choose. I don’t believe Obama wants to touch these programs, but he has proved he will to satisfy the GOP. I don’t want to see any return of some “grand bargain.” But, look to where both those proposals are generated from: both are generated from the GOP.

    1. PJ, Politely, a correction, John didn’t state any belief, he stated a concern and a desire. Evidence you presented, weighs his concern as more valid than your stated belief which you seem to hold despite the evidence you yourself say, exists to the contrary.

      Rhetorical question, are we again going to see a flurry of long diaries to push the valuable discussions of the last couple days, immediately farther down the board to be obscured from weekend readers with some time to check in to the site?

    2. PJ,

      From 2008 – 2010 Democrats and independents delivered the Presidency, and both Houses to establishment Democrats.

      From 2008 – 2010 it’s not the GOP’s fault that we don’t have Medicare-for-All.

      From 2008 – 2010 it’s not the GOP’s fault that Dems didn’t bring back Glass-Steagall and other WALL STREET reforms that would have cut off so much of the money that’s funding the Tea Party.

      From 2008 – 2010 it’s not the GOP’s fault that we weren’t pulling troops out of all foreign bases and pivoting our defense budget over to fighting the war that matters, climate changed.

      From 2008 – 2010 it’s not the GOP’s fault that the Presidential election is still NOT by popular vote. That would have meant almost 700,000 more heavily Democratic votes from Washington, D.C in every future Presidential election. That would have tilted both party’s entire Presidential campaign strategy to the left.

      From 2008 – 2010 it’s not the GOP’s fault that we didn’t replace welfare and unemployment insurance with a FEDERAL job guarantee, based on FDR’s public works programs. http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/07/a-plan-for-all-the-detroits-out-there.html

      It’s not the GOP’s fault that President Obama’s DOJ has never put the hundreds of Wall Street folks who were responsible for the crash of 2008 behind bars.

      It’s not the GOP’s fault that President Obama STILL won’t change the FEDERAL schedule on marijuana.

      From 2008 – 2010 it wasn’t the GOP’s fault that we didn’t get meaningful immigration reform.

  3. JC,

    Some excellent examples of a failed Democratic Establishment. But look to the source of those failures – what you’ve outlined are betrayals of Progressive approaches to governance. What you point to are conservative approaches to governance – conservatively motivated approaches to governance. What you’ve outlined is an outcome. An outcome of the political war waged against Progressivism.

    The current Shutdown was neither devised by nor executed by Obama and Democrats.

    1. Shorter PJ, “Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?”

      For his first two years in office, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama’s Chief of Staff. If you want to dilute the blame on the President, and I don’t really have a problem with that, Rahm’s a really good place to start.

      From the Dirty effing hippies, emoprogs a wonkish piece: “Stop “the Great Betrayal”: Kabuki Update”

      http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2013/10/04/stop-the-great-betrayal-kabuki-update/

      It’s excellent on the media the various players will use to signal their positions.

      Leader Pelosi only needs 17 Republicans to vote with all the House Dems. That gives the progressive caucus, folks in really safe Dem districts enormous power. They can block any attempt to “chain the CPI.”

      1. False characterizations intended to mislead and doing the “chase the goalpost dance” are two of the many fundamentally anti-intellectual, propagandist distortions that have found us where we are – in shutdown.

        Thank you for your update on the Chained CPI. Have you pondered those questions I’ve posed to you yet? Here they are again for reference:

        Do you know why stonewalling works?

        Do you know why extortion works?

        Do you think Dems should adopt the ruthless and unconscionable tactics of the GOP? Are these tactics acceptable to you?

    2. Avoid naming the source, betrayals of Progressives by whom, PJ? Consevative approaches to governance instigated by whom, PJ? A political war waged by whom? You know the answer, and its clear you cannot mouth the truth. By Democratic leadership, right PJ? That’s near head exploding admission that just cannot be squared with fantasy beliefs.

      But hey, look on the bright side, SorryO is slightly distracted in from his attempt to land a full knock-out punch to the head of what remains of our democratic republic, has cancelled some of his itinerary to Asia and is presently delayed and distracted from pushing the TPP.

      http://www.alternet.org/print/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/corporate-coup-disguise

      Even if the D leadership didn’t devise this immediate fiasco, that didn’t stop them from eagerly and deliberately playing along for the opportunity to fully engage, unnecessarily be playing the blame game at all our expense, and from immediately sending out the fund-raising cry with this “golden opportunity,” to the (as you have previously described them) low-information, muddled D base to fight the intransigent TParty GOPers.

      Can’t have a good cop without the bad cop, so as both major party factions again work for the 1% advantage, whiners like you, miss the point again with your blind party loyalty obscuring the real source of the problem. Divided and conquered you are again, as you and a few others blame emoprogs as being the problem and seemingly easily find the time for profound noodling.

      1. Well, NQ, I’d say a good portion of the political warfare that’s been waged is evidenced by the Right Wing Propaganda Machine tied in with the Kochs, the Roves, the Norquists. After all, it isn’t as if they’v hidden their agenda to put an end to Progressivism. I and many others have commented on it. Here and in the national discourse. Are you suggesting that you are unaware of the trajectory of Conservatism in this country (or in the “Western” world), particularly since 1980? Are you saying you’re unaware of Movement Conservatism? Are you suggesting that you’re unaware of the DLC (now defunct)? Are you saying you haven’t come across any synthesis whatsoever in the national discourse regarding the political dynamics in this country for you to draw from? You need me to specify for you? Well then, I’d say, indeed you need to get up to speed before you can adequately formulate any coherent commentary.

        Of course the wealthy elite have subsumed both parties. Where we may disagree: from which party that hold will be easier to extract. Also, how each were subsumed. I think it will be easier to extract from the Democratic Party – providing the Left doesn’t sink into the anti-intellectual quagmire that has bogged down the Right. And we might disagree on regressivism – which I probably consider as important as you consider the 1%. Though, I’ll grant you this – as I mentioned to JC in a previous post, I think it likely that the business and finance sectors will, as a result of the shutdown, abandon Republican irrationalism (at least temporarily) and gravitate toward Dems.

        You should spend more time thinking, NQ. Profound noodling might strengthen your perspective and weaken your bitterness.

        I have another suggestion for you. Yes, yes. I know you will reject it out of hand, but I’m going to do it anyway. My suggestion to you is this – if you didn’t read that blog post I linked to (Privacy Man and Crypto-Girl are not wearing pants) do. You might find the conclusion surprising. You might even agree with it.

        Really, opening the mind doesn’t hurt. It isn’t the easier route, but I recommend you give it a try.

        1. The portion of the war waged by the heavily duped base and well financed far right, does absolutely nothing to negate a single bit of the damage done to progressives and small d democrats by the corporate agenda sell-outs operating within the D party leadership. They are there, wielding power, regardless of whichever label that you, they, or others choose for them, as their ranks and key players change through time. The right has solidified their base, the psuedo-left leadership has disemboweled their base. Not too hard to see, but obviously hard for some people to face and admit, and, as I’ve noted several times, neither side’s action is mutually exclusive to the outcomes when deliberately trying to kill off the meager remains of our democratic republic.

          Missing that point, you come back with your predictable construct of obfuscating questions insinuating that I may have missed this or that, and that I am not fully informed enough to comment. You construct erroneous conclusions debasing my intellectual acuity, again based on multiple erroneous personal presumptions about me, to deliberately further demean my (or whomever you might be addressing) credibility, and like clock-work follow with your cliche’ gratuitous, advise about how myself or others can improve ourselves before addressing you or commenting on a blog. You then defensively insinuate that any statement of fact by anyone, countering whatever you espouse, is automatically cloaked in bitterness or spite, and therefore further suspect.

          The difference in my various pursuits, (a partial list here) recreational, political, educational or personal, (addressing “noodling,” and in this case, your publicly promoting the activity at a political blog) is that I recognize priorities and crisis situations and will assign relative values to the importance of when to engage any of them. For example, do you use, have you ever used, bitcoin?

          With the TPP looming I’m not out of line suggesting that it’s of greater importance at this moment to most of the people likely reading BBlue. All I saw in that post of yours was political/intellectual puffery and narcissistic show meant to supposedly impress others with you. Life and death real priorities wound into the TPP just exemplified the frivolous disregard to reality I perceived with your piece. You stuck it out there, with a couple of base literary hooks, trolling for attention. Tough shit that it or many of your comments, don’t generate responses satisfactory to you.

          1. NQ,

            Thank you for your input. I seem to have missed your point. Surely you are willing to help me get your point so I don’t miss it again. To facilitate my understanding, a few matters for engagement:

            The portion of the war waged by the heavily duped base? Which portion is that? Which portion of the war does the heavily duped base wage?

            How do the following components logically connect? Another way of phrasing that: In what manner, other than non-negation, do the following two components relate to each other?

            1. The portion of the war waged by the heavily duped base and well financed far right

            2. …damage done to progressives and small d democrats by the corporate agenda sell-outs operating within the D Party leadership.

            So, I’m thoroughly clear that I haven’t missed your salient point – how would you diagram said point onto the political landscape as it intersects with the parameters of Shutdown justification?

            Would you be so kind as to demonstrate your acuity without the benefit of linking to anyone else’s analysis? This isn’t a scholarly forum and you needn’t utilize anyone else’s credibility to establish the credibility of any component of your point that you, yourself reason out.

            Further, so I am clear on your point:

            What, to your mind, are the positive aspects of the Democratic Party or Obama that have not been damaging to our democratic republic? What strengths can you identify within the Democratic Party and in Obama?

            What, to your mind, are the positive aspects of the Republican Party that have not been damaging to our democratic republic? What positives can you identify within the Republican Party?

            Are the positives – the non-damaging aspects in both parties identified above not mutually exclusive either?

            Let’s try to get on the same page: I haven’t insinuated anything, NQ. I’ve stated my criticism of your commentary bluntly.

            1. Thank you for your input. I seem to have missed your point.

              Sounds like a personal problem, PJ, you’re likely the only one who did.
              Kindly give us all a permanent break.

              1. Forgive me, NQ. You distracted me with your previous commentary so I had not yet seen this one. After all, that is what your commentary does. It distracts in order to delegitimize in pure, unmistakable propagandist form.

                You seem confused, unclear by the statement that you highlight. Why on earth you would be confused? I’m concurring with you, I’m agreeing with you. I’m assenting to your own observation. And if I am the only one who did miss your point? Are you not prepared for civil engagement and rational discourse? I’ve engaged your reply genuinely. In civil discourse you then address the questions that were asked. Is your reluctance to engage a signal that civil discourse is not your intent?

                If you would like a permanent break, there is a simple solution. Desist from your antagonism and your disingenuous commentary.

          2. NQ,

            Let’s find another mutual page: “Facts.” I believe I once said to you – “You wouldn’t know a ‘fact’ if it bit you in the nose.” I reiterate that fact now. With the depth of your acuity you do not derive factuality. Within a discussion forum, you operate as if facts are dependent upon a single opinion alone. Usually yours. Surely with the depth of your acuity you are aware of how fact functions as constituent rather than conclusively? Nor are facts monolithic entities immutable or one-dimensional as you would have them be. Likewise, you do not derive factuality because you do not evaluate disputability. You therefore do not accurately identify “fact” once “fact” is no longer an indisputable condition. Surely, the depth of your acuity can fathom how “fact” functions to distort rather than elucidate when abused or misrepresented in the anti-intellectual spheres of propagandism and irrationality?

            I’m not implying anything about your intellectual acuity, NQ. I will state it as plainly as I can: When you are “armed” with “facts” as you “present” them and you expect the same of others you remain in the realm of the petulant anti-intellectual impatient with the rigor intellectualism requires. Rather than allowing the synergy of a community discussion to procure “fact” you assume the domain of factuality upon you yourself alone simultaneously denying it to all others. In addition, you when you refuse to grant yourself an open position to question your own assumptions, you remain in the realm of the mindless reactionary.

          3. NQ,

            On importance: Au contraire…. you are out of line in suggesting “with the TPP looming it’s of greater importance at this moment to most of the people likely reading BBlue.”

            You are out of line on more than one count. First, it is not your place to decide what is of importance to other people. What is important to other people is a decision other people are to make for themselves. You are all the way out of line by choosing what is of importance to anyone other than yourself.
            Second, one of the products of creative thinking and critical discourse is insight and insight confers acuity. Binary or pre-eminent positioning of a single perspective exclusive of all others is antithetical to perspicacity that is amenable and additive in quality. Therefore, I don’t hint at your intellectual acuity; you, yourself demonstrate the antithesis of what acuity necessitates.

            Third, simply demanding to reframe is just sheer, unadulterated propagandist method and inhibitive to a meaningful exchange of ideas. Ideas, like facts, are not simplex. Ideas, like facts, are complex. Your consistent reframing appeal shunts the discourse into simplex mode. As to dismissal – there is a place for it and that place is when condition of “fact” has been soundly routed by rational means. Clinging to a logically refuted position and denial of legitimacy are definitively irrational. You’d be wise to remember that as you adhere consistently to both. When you do you are as a leech sucking all life out of reasonable discourse. Actually the leech is most apt to apply to your commentary: relentless meaning-sucking leech describes your commentary to a tee.

  4. “Obama Approval Jumps 5 Points”

    A new Fox News poll finds that President Obama’s overall job rating has improved 5 percentage points over last month: 45% approve now, up from 40% in September.

    “That comes mainly from an increase in approval among his party faithful. Some 84% of Democrats approve of Obama’s performance now, up from a record-low 69% last month during the situation with Syria.”

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/10/04/obama_approval_jumps_5_points.html

  5. PJ,

    From the White House:

    “Chained CPI Protections”

    “…The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI. But, the Budget makes clear that the openness to chained CPI depends on two conditions. The President is open to switching to the chained CPI only if:

    The change is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform.

    It is coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship….”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections

    PJ, please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Social Security have a dedicated funding source, the payroll tax? That’s what the damn irrational Republican President Reagan says in this 37-second video: “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI

    I seem to recall you and I agreeing about this and the importance of lifting the income cap (for folks making more than $111,000/year) off the payroll tax.

    Do you think someone could show this 37-second video to Rahm Emanuel and then maybe he could call the President and ask him to view it?

    Is it ok if we contrast cutting Social Security with the President’s largesse to Wall Street back in 2011?

    “Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

    To help you put $75 trillion in perspective, I’m going with an estimate of nominal US GDP (that’s Gross Domestic Product) in 2012 of something around $16.6 trillion in 2012.

    1. Are you ok with that?

    I think it’s way too low, but I’ve seen recent estimates of the financial cost of Iraq and Afghanistan of around $6 trillion.

    2. Are you ok with that?

    Estimates I’ve seen of Social Security’s Trust Fund are around $2.5 trillion.

    3. Are you ok with that?

    Any idea why President Obama and the Democrats are not going back to Bank of America and asking them to take the risk associated with that $75 trillion off the taxpayers and put it back on their shareholders?

    Also, all the other Wall Street banks have derivative exposure and it’s a lot more than $75 trillion. If President Obama lets Bank of America “socialize” their derivative risk onto the taxpayers, how can he say “no,” to JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Wells Fargo,….?

    1. Thank you for the Chained CPI update. I can’t see your video. All I see is a black screen. LIke Steve’s video this morning, I’m sure that glitsch is coming from my end. At this point I’ve only skimmed your text. It looks pretty hefty so to give you a response worthy of the effort you’ve put into your comment, could you please be patient enough to wait until morning for a reply? At the moment I couldn’t give you a reply deserving of your effort.

      Meanwhile, I hope you have thought a little bit on the questions that I posed to you. Here they are again:

      Do you know why stonewalling works?

      Do you know why extortion works?

      Do you think Dems should adopt the ruthless and unconscionable tactics of the GOP? Are these tactics acceptable to you?

    1. Here’s an idea, John. Rather than utilizing a question as a bludgeon to hammer home your single-minded point of view, why not try asking questions honestly? Rather than asking a question that tears down, why not try asking questions that build up? Rather than asking questions designed only to serve your own narrow and slanted view, why not ask questions for the purpose of asking questions – you know what that is, don’t you, John? Genuine inquiry? Honest and open discussion? Why not ask a question for which you do not have an answer? Or are you not looking for answers? You have all the answers?

      And if you ask questions perhaps you should have the temerity to reply to questions when they are posed to you. Or is honestly answering a question not a goal either?

      I’ve posed a number of questions to you that you have yet to answer. Perhaps you’re prepared to answer them now. If you answer these questions honestly, you might get a little closer to answering the question you asked me.

      Do you know why stonewalling works?

      Do you know why extortion works?

      Do you think Democrats should adopt the ruthless and unconscionable tactics of the GOP? Are these tactics acceptable to you?

  7. PJ (or Mikey) is the author of “Visions of a Permanent Underclass,” Tyler Cowen and emoprog?

    “Economist Tyler Cowen in his latest book, “Average Is Over,” which analyzes the dynamics behind the rise of what he terms the “hyper-meritocracy..” depicts a polarizing labor market, increasingly hollowed out as middle-skill, middle-wage jobs disappear. The Great Recession, he argues, unmasked the fact that U.S. employers had taken on more middle-wage workers than they needed or could afford. That’s why so many displaced workers are being forced to accept new jobs at lower wages—and why so many others have dropped out of the workforce.

    The main driver of these disquieting trends is technology—specifically, smart machines that can do (and do better) an ever-rising share of what human beings do to earn their living. As this proceeds, some will win out: people who work with and around smart machines; managers who can organize these people; individuals with high general intelligence who can size up new situations and quickly learn what they need to know; and conscientious subordinates with the key new virtues of reliability and team play. Everyone else will lose out—except the marketers who know how to appeal to the wealthy.

    Here is Mr. Cowen’s description of our future: ” will bring more wealthy people than ever before, but also more poor people, including people who do not always have access to basic public services. Rather than balancing our budget with higher taxes or lower benefits, we will allow the real wages of many workers to fall and thus we will allow the creation of a new underclass. We won’t really see how we could stop that. . . . One day soon we will look back and see that we produced two nations, a fantastically successful nation, working in the technologically dynamic sectors, and everyone else….”

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251327721

    Thanks in advance

    1. On the surface, it doesn’t look like Tyler Cowen is an EmoProg. What is Tyler Cowen’s stance on the Shutdown?

      Thanks for the informative, link.

Comments are closed.