The pundits naysaying the President's proposal as not enough in spending are out of reality.

[RBInMaine]

Yes, ideally it would great to have much more spending. But even the spending Obama has proposed will be opposed by the RePUKES. What Obama has done is paint the Pukes into a corner. He framed them up with what is really a moderate proposal that is hard, in the minds of most Americans, to say no to. And he knows even with that they will still say no to most or all of it. Of course he wants to spend more. Of course he knows more spending to get demand up is needed. Remember, back with the first stimulus he proposed $1.2 trillion, but had to negotiate down to $800 billion. No choice in order get the needed Senate votes. This time he had to propose something relatively moderate because it has to be something politically conceivable given the current make-up of Congress. And with this he was able to paint the RePUKES into an extremist corner. THAT was the goal. It was a major political argument victory. A political win win. Had he gone nuclear with MUCH more spending, HE would have looked foolish and given the RePUKES TONS of political/rhetorical ammunition.
He proposed all he could propose that allowed him to look very reasonable and urgently fighting for jobs while also framing up the RePUKES as extremist fools. And he can take it to the nation, as he said. He handed them their political ass, but he wouldn't have had he proposed some MASSIVE amount of spending. Like it or not, Americans want BALANCED approaches and they ARE concerned about debt as well as jobs. He played it just right. Remember, there is the ideal, and then there is what is politically conceivable; what could conceivably actually PASS the Congress. A new MASSING spending plan isn't politically conceivable given the current make-up of the Congress. So to all "Progressives/Dems" who stayed home and/or barely engaged last November, if you want a bolder spending plan, make a better choice on your level of political engagement in 2012 and take back the House and increase the number of Dems in the Senate.

[Confusious]

1. Yep. Sure. He's still playing that 3D chess

[frazzled]

2. Are you sure your handle isn't

Confused?

[RBInMaine]

4. Are you sure your handle isn't "Politically Illiterate"?

[frazzled]

14. Quite sure it isn't

I read the economists, and don't pay attention to the pundits, or the skeptics, really. And a sampling of what the economists say is:

Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, New York Times, today:

First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment. ... The plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/setting-their...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics:

President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession.
The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.

https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLogin_4.asp?sc...

Paul Ashworth, Capital Economics:

President Obama’s newly proposed $450 billion job creation bill is equivalent to nearly 3% of GDP, so if it was passed by Congress as it stands it would certainly have a significant impact on GDP growth in 2012, which we currently expect to be only 2%. The big question, however, is whether an otherwise hopelessly split Congress can agree to pass any of the multitude of different measures the bill includes? –

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/08/economists-re... /

Now, I suggest that you do some reading to inform yourself.

[mtnsnake]

15. OUCH

[Confusious]

7. Reading problems?

Might be time for some contacts or glasses.

Might also help with that perception problem, between "talked about" and "did"

It'll clear up that fuzziness on the screen.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. In 2010, Obama very seriously and realistically led us to our worst election defeat in decades

Just think of what he can do in 2012. The very realistic and serious demand to slash Social Security NOW! NOW! NOW! should earn many, many votes.

Makes me tingle.

[RBInMaine]

5. Purist nonsense. So called "progressives" stayed home and whined. Grow up.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. So we didn't suffer the worst election defeat in decades?

Or Obama wasn't our leader?

Take your pick.

[RBInMaine]

8. Yup. ALL Obama's fault. He didn't hand out enough milk and cookies.

[Confusious]

10. Nope, he's getting ready to hand out cat food to seniors.

You only get milk and cookies if you got the dough.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. So we didn't suffer the worst election defeat in decades?

Or Obama wasn't our leader?

Or leaders aren't accountable when their organizations fail horribly?

Take your pick.

[tblue]

16. It's not Obama's fault, MannyG!

Nothing is! He is a VICTIM of Republicans AND progressives. We must pity him and praise him, otherwise we are labeled 'purist.' And you know how badly you would miss campaigning with the people who would call you that.

The arrogance and bullying do not win me over. I vote in every election but, man, these personal insults sure are making me reconsider.

[Mr Deltoid]

22. He handed all the milk and cookies to the GOP

Obama makes his own bed and he will ultimately have to sleep in it.

[Confusious]

9. Not wanting to slash social social security

is purist nonsense? who knew? I guess things have shifted to the right.

[tblue]

17. When a Democrat does it, that means it's okay.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Confusious]

32. Nope I think I missed that one... nt

[frylock]

12. it's been pointed out to you and others many times that progressives did not stay home..

and i'll ask you, probably for the tenth time, why do you feel that you can lecture others on how to vote when you can't even get dems elected in your own state?

[JoePhilly]

19. No, what they did is help discourage low info dems.

The media is playing 2 totally opposite "Obama Bad memes".

1) There is the right wing version. Obama as socialist commie facist, secret Muslim, who hates American and wants to redistribute wealth to the poor. This "Obama bad" message is constructed to increase turnout from low information Republicans.

2) The left wing version. Obama is a corporatist, secret Republican, who hates America, and wants to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. This "Obama bad" message is constructed to decrease turnout from low information Democrats.

FOx News spends all day selling Message #1.

CNN and MSNBC now spend all day selling Message #2.

That's why the GOP won in 2010.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Low information voters are low information: they don't watch hardly any news

and they certainly aren't watching much MSNBC. They might pick up the regular broadcast news (ABC CBS NBC) or even Fox. But they certainly were not getting the progressive/left/liberal criticism of this administration. The 2010 election was lost by the swing of 'independent' voters from Democratic to Republican, and that was a result of a shitty economy not getting better and a whole lot of your (1) category above. If you have any data, actual data, to the contrary that indicates that message boards or Rachel Madow or Keith Olbermann were causative factors in the 2010 election defeat, please do share them.

p.s. CNN is nearly as bad as Fox in terms of right wing bias.

The reason we lost in 2010 was because of MSNBC? Seriously?

[JoePhilly]

30. The so called liberal media runs BOTH of the messages I mentioned.

FOX is 24/7 on #1, MSNBC runs mostly #2, except Scarborough, he runs #1.

CNN, ABC, NBC go back and forth playing #1 and #2.

And those low information voters, and independents hear the one common message "Obama bad", because whether its #1 or #2, the core message is the same one. And there is no other message.

To Rachel's credit, she now spends less time on #2, and more on the insane things that the GOP puts forward.

DU's angry left lives off #2 while claiming #1 is totally crazy.

Huffpo, FDL, they also generate eyeballs to their site using #2.

The reason the media does this is for maximum controversial effect.

And again ... the goal is to get a small uptick in GOP votes, and a small down tick in Dem voters.

Obama won by about 6% in 2008. 3% increase for GOP, 3% decrease for Dems, and 2012 is a very close race.

Let's face it, the media says NOTHING good about Obama. They vacillate between the 2 messages I mentioned.

And people in the middle, low info voters, independents, hearing nothing but "Obama bad" from all sides, acted accordingly.

[frylock]

26. no, what obama did was discourage low-information independants and younger voters..

the simple solution is to enact democratic policy, quit cowtowing to the repubs in the name of some unatainable bipartisinahip, and start doing what he was fucking elected to do.

[JoePhilly]

31. Why would independents flock to Obama for enacting "democratic policy"?

If they were huge proponents of democratic policy, they'd be democrats.

No independents tend to cross party lines at times.

And all they hear from their right and from their left is "Obama bad". If they are generally right leaning independents, they will be motivated to remove Obama and elect a Republican based on that message. If they are a left leaning Independent, they will become less motivated to vote for Obama, and stay home.

Small uptick in GOP plus a small down tick in Dem voters, and the 2012 election gets close.

The last thing the media wants is a blow out.

[frylock]

33. this thing is obama's to lose..

no amount of pony pouting pissing and moaning on the DU is going to cost him the election.

[Mr Deltoid]

23. Youth stayed home

The youth vote did not materialize because 'hope' and 'change' didn't materialize.

[ChiciB1]

28. You Know I SEE This Posted All The Time... I've Never Commented On It, BUT

have wondered about it every time I see it posted. In my area Democrats DIDN'T seem to stay home at all. However, it rarely matters if we do or don't where I live. You see, Democrats don't get elected around here. NONE that I know of anyway. NONE elected to ANYTHING of any importance FOR my 30 years here that I know of.

BUT, I do know that all of my family voted, and everyone of my Democratic friends did too! I've been a long time activist and help others vote all the time. Made sure they at least got their absentees, or told them I would help them with a ride.

I freely admit that I HAVE NOT done real research or number crunching, so I was wondering if anyone here has links that VERIFY this statement. The main reason I haven't checked into this is because of where I live, simply because I'm not really sure if my vote gets counted. I KNOW, conspiracy theories and all that, but Florida has had some very strange elections and one right here in my district. It was the one with Christine Jennings & Vern Buchanan and the 18,500 under votes when they ran against each other the first time. Yes, I HAVE been suspicious about elections here, ever since 2000. I HAVE no proof, but I do know that there was a man who testified before Congress about voter fraud here in Florida.

AND, to this day I STILL don't buy that Rick Scott was legally elected. He was behind in the polls almost all the way through the campaign, up until almost the last few days BEFORE the election. He's been absolutely atrocious, but I doubt anyone will EVER know what goes on. There are so many of us who still vote all the time, but we do so then sit and wonder.

THIS election coming up in 2012 may be different, I don't really know what kind of turnout there will be. However, I DO know of many, many Democrats who will be holding their noses when they vote. I HAD said that I was going to do it regardless, but I wonder how I'll feel when the time gets here. For me, even though Obama was handed a crappy hand, I'm not one who really feels good about him. I've completely disconnected myself from almost EVERY Democratic outlet except a very few. And I most certainly DO NOT want this administration to call or ask me for help. I have NEVER felt this way about voting for the Democratic candidate as POTUS. I've tried to make it work for me, and I don't really want to say these things, but I have to be truthful to myself.

I'm still a registered Democrat and believe in the principles of a Democratic Party I once knew, it's just not the one that I see today. Yes, I AM ready to bolt, but where do I go? What the Repukes offer is even worse, but maybe not by much.

It's just so sad and depressing to see this in my lifetime. And I DO worry about my kids and what may be coming down the pike. I'm tired and feel defeated most of the time, and I'm very suspicious of what I fear is REALLY going to happen. Each speech I hear, I find words & phrases that contain "wiggle room" and my cynicism grows.

But I HAVE NOT stopped voting yet, and I don't know too many people who have, YET!

Soooooooo, perhaps people stayed home, I don't really think so, but I don't have the stats.

I would be interested in a link or two, but I'm not going to waste my time researching because what may be coming could be worse.

[quakerboy]

13. Its a good thing that people are paying attention

to the particulars of policy and whatnot, rather than to the fact they don't have jobs.

That would be sarcasm. I find it far more likely that the main mass of people don't have a clue whether a particular nuance of policy is Right, Left, or moderate, unless someone tells them. And The vast preponderance of voices will be calling it socialist, which means thats what many ears will hear and believe.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. So, start with too little and negotiate down from there.

An interesting strategy, one that has worked so well in the past.

[TheKentuckian]

20. What is your argument since you too understand that what can be passed is not enough

It has nothing to do with ideal worlds but rather the scale of the problem in the real world.

If you are launching a rocket then it takes a minimum amount of propellant to reach escape velocity and all the hand wringing about why you want to launch without at least the bare minimum amount of fuel (not to mention a hodgepodge of stuff that doesn't all even make rocket fuel which means even less left).

"All that can be passed" cannot be conflated with workable.

It is also important to at least grapple with the concept that the people want problems solved. They certainly may have preferences on how to go about solving them but remember the American electorate doesn't give passes for failing in line with the polls. You can follow the polls like a glider in the wind and be rejected and despised.

Popular but failed remedies that are easily seen in hindsight (and should be quite apparent going in) as snake oil is not winning mid and long term strategy and isn't overly strong in the short term because the hand to mouth nature relies on holding almost all of a minority that isn't delusional or pretending to be in order to attract the delusional.

The thing is Congress can neither repeal nor amend the laws of physics, political reality cannot be allowed to trump actual reality in any machinations.

In the real world we need at least two trillion dollars in the fairly short term just to get our infrastructure up to code, that says nothing about the need to modernize to sustain and compete or longer term investment to maintain what we have.

[paulk]

27. + 1

and crickets on the reply

[Mr Deltoid]

21. "Americans want BALANCED approaches"

Bullshit

Americans want solutions, not ideological balance.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. No really we want a half cup of full out loon and a half cup of not enough.

That is what we are demanding.

[Phx_Dem]

29. +1.